Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] Re: [dsdp-tm-dev] Moving the RSE "RemoteCDTLaunch"feature into CDT

Of course, we'd make this an optional feature for the CDT.

Related to this, I'm working on my EclipseCon tutorial for integrating
gnu cross development tools. If it turns out nice, I can add that to a
CDT GNU Cross Development feature that would include the remote launch.

Doug.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc Khouzam
> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:13 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.; CDT General developers 
> list.; Target Management developer discussions
> Cc: dsdp-tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Re: [dsdp-tm-dev] Moving the RSE 
> "RemoteCDTLaunch"feature into CDT
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm sure this is a beginner question but...
> 
> If the CDT will have a dependency on TM (RSE) for one of its 
> launches, what will happen to user that don't install RSE?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Marc
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Schaefer, Doug
> Sent: Wed 3/4/2009 4:32 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.; Target Management developer 
> discussions
> Cc: dsdp-tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Re: [dsdp-tm-dev] Moving the RSE 
> "Remote CDTLaunch"feature into CDT
>  
> I don't think it's that big of deal. Not sure why TM is +2. 
> Ideally, we should be able to build all of this at the same time.
>  
> Doug.
>  
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Recoskie
> 	Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 4:22 PM
> 	To: Target Management developer discussions
> 	Cc: Target Management developer discussions; CDT 
> General developers list.; dsdp-tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 	Subject: [cdt-dev] Re: [dsdp-tm-dev] Moving the RSE 
> "Remote CDT Launch"feature into CDT
> 	
> 	
> 
> 	Hmm.... Yeah... then CDT would have to go from a +1 
> Galileo project to a +3? Unless TM decided to move up to +1?
> 	
> 	Sounds messy, at least for right now.
> 	
> 	===========================
> 	Chris Recoskie
> 	Team Lead, IBM CDT and RDT
> 	IBM Toronto
> 	 Pawel Piech <pawel.piech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 
> 				Pawel Piech <pawel.piech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> 				Sent by: dsdp-tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 				03/04/2009 04:05 PM 
> 	
> 	Please respond to
> Target Management developer discussions <dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
>  
> 
> To
> 
> Target Management developer discussions 
> <dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "CDT
> General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>	
> 
> 
> cc
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> Subject
> 
> Re: [dsdp-tm-dev] Moving the RSE "Remote CDT Launch" feature into CDT	
> 	 	
> 
> 	I like the idea of having the RSE-based remote launch 
> in CDT, but it would introduce a dependency from CDT on the 
> Target Management project, which would have implications on 
> the CDT build.
> 	-Pawel
> 	
> 	Oberhuber, Martin wrote: 
> 
> 			Hi all,
> 			
> 			As some of you may know, one part of 
> the TM / RSE offering is a "Remote CDT" Launch configuration, 
> which allows 
> 
> 				*	Uploading files through
> RSE-provided Services 
> 				*	Launching the program remotely
> through an RSE-provided shell 
> 				*	Debugging remotely through a
> remote gdbserver instance (requires local cross-gdb).
> 
> 			The implementation of this feature 
> requires using CDT internal non-API [1] 
> <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=257402>  in 
> order to get the debugger configuration page into the launch 
> config UI, which is forbidden in Galileo.
> 			
> 			We'd therefore think it makes sense to 
> move the feature into the CDT [2] 
> <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=267065>  -- on 
> the RSE side, only public API is being used. In other words, 
> we propose adding a new optional CDT feature "Remote Launch" 
> which depends on the RSE, and removing that feature from the 
> RSE offering.
> 			
> 			The feature itself doesn't expose any 
> API (everything is "internal"), so renaming the plugin and/or 
> the package should not be an issue if that is desired.
> 			
> 			Does the CDT Community agree that this 
> is a good thing to do?
> 			Who is the right person to get in touch 
> with for making it happen?
> 			Is it realistic to get that done for M6?
> 			
> 			[1]
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=257402
> <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=257402> 
> 			[2]
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=267065
> <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=267065> 
> 			
> 			Thanks,
> 			--
> 			Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of 
> Technical Staff, Wind River
> 			Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
> 			http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
> <http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm> 
> 			
> 			
> 			
> 			
> ________________________________
> 
> 			
> 			_______________________________________________
> 			dsdp-tm-dev mailing list
> 			dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
> 			
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-tm-dev
> <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-tm-dev> 
> 			 
> 
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	dsdp-tm-dev mailing list
> 	dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 	https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-tm-dev
> 	
> 	
> 
> 
> 


Back to the top