[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Feedback on the europa update site
|
Hi John,
> other projects, such as BIRT, that depend on specific
> included features to
> access them in the same way as they do now. (For instance, if someone
> selects BIRT features that require parts of DTP, then "select
> required"
> will find still find the features).
I believe this will only work if your small component features
are also listed in site.xml.
The route that EMF seems to be going with this, is having the
larger "user-selectable" features in the Modeling categorey
and the smaller "auto-selectable" components which are included
in the larger featurs, listed in the "Enabling Features" category.
Not sure if this translates well for DTP.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber
Wind River Systems, Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of jograham@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:36 PM
> To: Cross project issues
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Feedback on the
> europa update site
>
> > - DTP is just overkill for an end user. Could not we have just two
> entries, general Data tools and SQL based data tools, and put all the
> enablement features in a sub category? <
>
> I can see Pascal's point here, and I'd like to group the DTP
> features into
> two wrappers, like we talked about at the beginning of
> Europa: end-user and
> extender. Before doing so, however, I'd just like to confirm that this
> grouping (which would mean having only two features in
> features-dtp.xml for
> Europa, but wrapping/including the current complete set)
> would still allow
> other projects, such as BIRT, that depend on specific
> included features to
> access them in the same way as they do now. (For instance, if someone
> selects BIRT features that require parts of DTP, then "select
> required"
> will find still find the features).
>
> Regards,
> John Graham
> Eclipse Data Tools Platform PMC Chair
> Staff Software Engineer, Sybase, Inc.
> http://dataplat.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> Pascal Rapicault
>
> <Pascal_Rapicault
>
> @ca.ibm.com>
> To
> Sent by:
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> cross-project-iss g
>
> ues-dev-bounces@e
> cc
> clipse.org
>
>
> Subject
>
> [cross-project-issues-dev] Feedback
> 05/28/2007 10:55 on the europa update
> site
> PM
>
>
>
>
>
> Please respond to
>
> Cross project
>
> issues
>
> <cross-project-is
>
> sues-dev@eclipse.
>
> org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Starting from a platform binary download, I decided to see
> what I could get
> from Europa.
> Overall I was pretty amazed by the amount of stuffs that I
> could get but
> still a bit disappointed to see that Subversive and PDT were
> missing. Too
> bad we can't force people in the train :-)
>
> I have noticed a bunch of weirdness for which I have / will open bug
> reports against various components. But here are a few general points:
>
> - I found pieces that I was not expecting, did the rules changed for
> - SDKs for the following components DLTK Core SDK (in the
> enablement), Corona client and servers, EMF, SDO, JET, EODM,
> OCL, UML2,
> DTP, DLTK Ruby, DLTK Tcl, Remote system explorer extender S
> - Examples: ECF
>
> - A lot of features had a lot of cryptic names, not easing
> the readability
> of the list, for example:
> - EODM
> - Dynamic Languages Toolking (DLKT) Ruby
> - IPExact Editor and Checker
> - TPTP Tracing and Profiling Tools project (in fact all the TPTP
> features say TPTP in the name)
>
> - The categorization of features could be improved
> - Could / should DALI be moved to the Java Development,
> what about
> some
> - Some features of "Remote Access and Device
> Development" could be
> moved under C/C++
> - Should CVS be moved under the "Collaboration" category?
>
> - Description (blob of text under the features list) and
> number of features
> not user friendly. Some components just have too many
> features presented to
> the end user:
> - DTP is just overkill for an end user. Could not we
> have just two
> entries, general Data tools and SQL based data tools, and put all the
> enablement features in a sub category?
> - Corona, do we really want to make the server
> installable from here?
> what would one do with a server installed in such a way?
> - Remote system explorer, same problem than DTP.
> - Overall the descriptions should be reviewed to help
> the user makes
> a choice whether or not he/she needs this functionality. If no good
> description can be found, then the feature should probably
> move into the
> "enablement feature" category :-) Also we should probably
> using the word
> "feature" in the description.
>
> HTH,
>
> PaScaL
>
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
