Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] SDK's on Galileo?

Thanks David!

To recap,
1.) Projects SHOULD provide a runtime feature (no source, no developer
2.) Projects MAY in addition provide an SDK

Regarding the "SDK's in the RT Target Platform Category" idea, 
my understanding is that this would work fine for source
bundles, but the developer docs won't be visible by referencing
a target platform.

It may be an interesting enhancement request for next year to 
allow running a help server based on contents in the TARGET
platform and not only the development host as it is today.

Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of David M Williams
> Sent: Dienstag, 12. Mai 2009 09:17
> To: Cross project issues
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] SDK's on Galileo?
> I may be missing the exact point of what started this thread, 
> but I can 
> confirm the original primary intent of the Galileo discovery 
> site is to 
> make it easy for "end users" of Eclipse to find the tools 
> they need to use 
> Eclipse, not extend Eclipse. And as such all projects should 
> provide a 
> "minimum install, non-SDK" feature(s). 
> We've tried now for two years to figure out what to do about 
> SDK's and the 
> users that want to extend Eclipse, but no substantial 
> progress yet. We'd 
> talked about having a separate site, or perhaps s separate 
> category, and 
> have even started to try and define what an SDK is (see 
> but have not made a group 
> decision. 
> I think since we (Planning Council) have not came up with an 
> agreed-to 
> definition or an agreed-to common way of handling SDKs, that 
> projects will 
> have to use their own best judgement. I'd say at a minimum you should 
> provide the minimum install end-user runtime-type features 
> ... this is 
> best for those that just want to use Eclipse, say to create a 
> web app, a 
> php page, a Java program, some models, etc. If Projects believe they 
> really have enough users that require an SDK, then I'd say it 
> is ok to 
> also provide an SDK feature, but has others have pointed out, 
> those users 
> should have the ability to find what they need, after installing the 
> minimums. 
> A new, late-breaking alternative might be to consider using 
> the "EclipseRT 
> Target Platform Components" category for _some_ SDKs and, in 
> some of those 
> cases, the corresponding "runtime" components, might not even 
> need to be 
> in a category, per se, just in the repository, since, as one concrete 
> example, few end-users really have to install "gef" from the 
> discovery 
> site ... most would just get it automatically as they 
> installed what ever 
> graphical editor they wanted to use. 
> Hope this helps clarify the current situation, and where we 
> need to focus 
> next year. 
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top