|
Hi,
for me the relavant questions are:
1. Which bundles to we want to graduate and move?
IMHO, the Application Model Editor and the e4 project wizards
would be most important and already a huge improvement of the
situation. Everybody who wants to create a native e4 applications
needs this editor.
Far behind, I would consider th CSS editor, but I think it would
be acceptable to still install this one.
2. Where do we want to move it?
Until now, most people mentioned, that the e4 tools should be
moved to PDE. I personally would prefer to move them to the
platform. The editor is really closely connected to the platform,
it even accesses some internal API. The editor must also evolve in
parallel to the Application Model. Finally I think the developers
of the plattform are more connected to the tools.
3. What do we need to do to make this happen?
I think we should identify the shortest path to a good result.
- I don't think it is essential that the editor provides a public
API. Extending it is a rather advanced use cases. If people
extended a non-graduated tool in the past, I think they can live
with internal API or SPI in the future. From an API stability
point of view, this does not make a difference.
- We need to check, which bundles must be moved. I am worried most
about org.eclipse.e4.tools.services, it contains parts, which are
not only used by the Application Model editor. So we might need to
move some things around.
- We need to define our goals for documentation and test coverage
Finally I do not think this will slow down the evolution of the
tools. If people want to contribute, they can still do. In turn, I
think it makes it easier and more visible to create native e4
applications.
What do you think?
Cheers
Jonas
P.S.: Doug, thanks fro pushing this forward, I think an opinion
from a user point of view is very valuable for this discussion
Am 20.01.2014 18:18, schrieb Doug Schaefer:
These tools are equals to the plugin.xml and *.product
editors. Not sure what you are getting at below. I’m pretty sure
users who need these tools really don’t get it.
Doug.
Sorry if this is obvious
to others, but is this tool intended to be a "delivery" of
the "e4/sdk" product? In the sense it has APIs and/or
could be extended? Or it is intended for use only by
"Eclipse committers" in making Eclipse IDE?
I ask since the
"requirements" are quite a bit different for the two. If
simply a "releng tool" it could be provided similar to how
we deliver the "releng tools" from Platform (which
provides copyright tools, and a validator for MANIFEST and
POM versions (and some old cvs 'release' tools not used
much these days). While the description is needs
improvement, I think it's pretty clear it is not intended
to provide API or be extended (therefore "compatibility",
etc. is not considered that important ... we tell people
to use the same version built with their dev. environment.
But, if meant to be
extendable, and provide API, etc, then there are higher
criteria.
I should add, it would be
"hard" to "build with the SDK" because it depends on some
emf components (such as emf.edit.ui?) which is not apart
of the "base" EMF we get "early" from EMF.
Hope these comments help
inform the final decision.
From:
John Arthorne
<John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: E4 Project developer mailing
list <e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:
01/19/2014 11:11
AM
Subject:
Re: [e4-dev]
e4 tools build moving to Luna?
Sent by:
e4-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
If parts of the e4 tools
graduated into PDE, then all active contributors to those
tools would be granted PDE commit rights as part of the
graduation/restructuring. We did the same thing with
commit rights on other parts of e4 that graduated into the
platform. So I don't think commit rights will be a problem
at all. It does of course require active committers to
keep maintaining it wherever it ends up.
John
From: Lars
Vogel <lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxx>
To: E4
Project developer mailing list <e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 01/18/2014
05:02 AM
Subject: Re:
[e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna?
Sent by: e4-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
I personally like that we can adjust the tooling as
needed. PDE seems very inactive at the moment.
But test, better Javadoc and fixing the
outstanding bugs is good in general, no matter if the
tools get officially released or not, so no need to hold
such activities of.
Best regards, Lars
Am 18.01.2014 09:40 schrieb "Wim Jongman"
<wim.jongman@xxxxxxxxx>:
There are things missing in the model editor and in the
tooling in general. Most notably unit tests, javadoc and
user documentation. We need to fix these before a
release can be considered.
I am also happy to join a dedicated team that tackles
this. So that makes two. Who wants to join us?
Regards,
Wim
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
|
