| 
 I sure am. I'll take a look when I can get my head above water 
long enough. 
  
Cheers, 
Doug  
  
  Is nobody interested in this topic ? 
  :-)
  Regards, Benjamin.
 
  Benjamin CABÉ a 
  écrit : 
  Hi all,
  We've made some further work on the "p2 
    authoring tools" and developed an early prototype of a metadata repository 
    editor, which is quite similar to what the "Update site editor" 
    proposes. A requirement document has been initialized on the wiki (http://wiki.eclipse.org/Equinox_p2_Metadata_Repository_Authoring).
  We'd 
    like to have some feedback from the p2 community about the choice we made to 
    use an EMF model behind the editor, to ease the GUI development 
    (databinding, EMF content & label providers, undo/redo, ...). This model 
    is very close to the p2 API (see attached class diagram).
  At the 
    moment, what we've done is to bind the editor to our metadata repository 
    "EObject", and propose a "content.xml export" action that converts our EMF 
    model to p2 API classes. This is something very trivial, and that works 
    well, *but* we think it would be great to think about having the p2 engine 
    directly available as an EMF API.
  Some work has already been done to 
    make EMF Core, Edit, and Edit.UI Foundation 1.1 compatible (see bug #215378) 
    ; and the discussion about having more EMF inside e4 (e.g. an EMF workbench 
    model) came to the conclusion, AFAIK, that EMF is kind of great and can keep 
    a very tiny footprint. In the p2 context, having an EMF model would allow 
    : 
    
      - more trivial XML 
      serialization/unserialization 
      
 - listening to model changes
 
       - UI writing simplified (a lot!)
 
      
        - Databinding 
        
 - Undo/Redo 
        
 - Treeviewers, labelproviders, etc. much 
        simpler using the EMF.Edit layer 
    From what we have seen, most of the p2 API 
    (IMetadataRepository, IInstallableUnit, ...) have implementations that are 
    quite straightforward (getters and setters directly bound to their 
    underlying attribute), and the constructors could easily be replaced by the 
    EMF generated factories.
  What do you, p2 gurus, think about having 
    more EMF in p2? Is it something that has already been 
    discussed?
  Cheers, Benjamin. 
     
     
     
      
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
  
  
  
   
 |