[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [geclipse-dev] Design Proposal
|
On Friday 14 September 2007 15:23, Stuempert, Mathias IWR wrote:
> Since I would like to start with the D1.7 - which is actually the
> "update of the requirements to the architecture" - I would like to
> discuss a major update that I have in mind and would therefore ask for
> your opinions. As you know we have currently three perspectives that
> correspond to the three roles we want to support. On the other hand we
> have only one grid project nature that is mainly tailored to fit the
> ordinary user's needs, so I would call it from now on the "Grid User
> Project".
Do you mean a 'Grid User Nature' or really a 'Project'?
> I now would like to introduce two further project types, a
> "Grid Developer Project" and a "Grid Operator Project".
What's a project in this sense? It is a project nature, eventually one or many
builders, a project wizard and a few other things.
E.g. in a PDE project you have more than one nature: The Java nature and the
Plug-in nature:
<nature>org.eclipse.pde.PluginNature</nature>
<nature>org.eclipse.jdt.core.javanature</nature>
In a g-Eclipse project we have currently only this nature:
<nature>eu.geclipse.core.project.GridProjectNature</nature>
I don't see a reason for having that many types of natures. Maybe there are
some reasons in the future (then I would add another nature to the basic
GridProjectNature, instead of creating a new one), but for now all the
functionality (e.g. setup of different project structure) could be done in
the new project wizard.
> The main benefit
> of that would be that we could set up basic project structures that are
> tailored to fit the corresponding role's needs rather than only the
> user's needs (i.e. an operator would like to have a "Batch Systems"
> folder which is useless for a user). I do not want to get into detail
> with the specifications of these projects right now - this should be
> addressed in further discussions. What I would like to know is if you
> would agree to such a change in our architecture and if I can therefore
> include this requirement in D1.7. So please give me some feedback on
> this soon.
At the moment I do not see any reason to change something here or to add other
project types. Is there a real benefit that I am missing?
Markus
