Re: [wtp-dev] should WST have references to JDT?

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael asked: 
"
I'm not sure if the relocations are acceptable
since there have clearly been discussions relating to where these should
be placed, and they have currently been placed in WST. I know we've gone
through several renames and relocations in preparation for the WTP drop.
Any comments on this?
"

And we'll need to go through many more.
I believe the strategy was to get everything refreshed, into CVS as the
starting point, and then continue the refactoring and design work "in
the open" (as we've always intended). 

Whether or not JDT is a pre-req is a
type of litmus test ... I think it'd be very rarely needed in WST, if ever,
but might sometimes be allowed if it played some minor implementation detail
that didn't effect the API. The overriding consideration is what public,
visible API is this providing that we are willing to live with for many
future versions. I'm sure there's some in there we'll want, but others
we'll decide are not API worthy. As an example of the later, let's imagine
there was a little utility that made it slightly easier to add things to
the task/problems view. Well ... anyone can do that just using base Eclipse
functionality, so I think we'd want to question why this was so important
to "invest" in it as an additional API (or, question why the
base Eclipse doesn't make it easier). Other things, just going by the names,
like emfworkbench integration sounds like something that belongs in emf,
not in web tools. 

So, no easy answer that covers all cases
... but all cases will be closely scrutinized ... and that's true if in
WST or JST. 

David

Michael Elder/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS
Sent by: wtp-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

11/12/2004 01:05 AM

Please respond to
wtp-dev

To	wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	Re: [wtp-dev] should WST have references to JDT?

After a brief review of the J2EE Team's
contributions, it looks like we (Chuck's team) could do this with some
effort (but nothing foundation shaking). The following plugins from our
contribution currently reference org.eclipse.jdt.core

Of these: 
 
-- jdt.integration.* and navigator.java
could be relocated to the JST component. 
-- the dependencies from common.ui.* could
be refactored out because they are auxillary pieces of functionality. 
-- common.frameworks does not currently
have any references to jdt.core so the dependency can be removed.
-- emfworkbench.integration could be refactored,
but this may have other implications. The only dependency is in the base
class EditModel to provide access to an ICompilationUnit's working copy.
We could refactor this out and change the affected subclasses of Edit Model
where necessary.
-- annotations.* could be relocated to JST
since they deal with annotations in Java files anyway
 
I'm not familiar enough to comment on the
validation.* plugins. Vijay -- could you jump in on this one?
 
I'm not sure if the relocations are acceptable
since there have clearly been discussions relating to where these should
be placed, and they have currently been placed in WST. I know we've gone
through several renames and relocations in preparation for the WTP drop.
Any comments on this?
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind Regards,
 
Michael D. Elder
Rational Studio / J2EE Tools Development    

IBM RTP Lab
Ext: (919) 543-8356
T/L: 441-8356
mdelder@xxxxxxxxxx
 
 
 
Friday, November 12, 2004 12:46 AM
To: wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc: 
From: Naci Dai <naci.dai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] should WST have references to JDT?


I do not see any problems with WST referencing JDT, if it needs its functionality,
since JDT is part of base platform.



At 01:28 AM 11/12/2004, Craig Salter wrote:

Just curious to how others feel about this.  In my
working model of the WTP universe I'm assuming that there's no reason to
have WST plugins reference JDT.  I know we currently do have such
references in our WST code but I'm assuming these will eventually be removed
or relocated to the JST side.  I suppose the only exception that I
can think of would be 'generic' function that just happens to be currently
located in the JDT packages (and we  should really chase down eclipse
to refactor this sort of function).  Any opinions?

thanks

Craig


Craig Salter
Rational Studio XML Web Services
Internal Mail: D3/RY6/8200 /MKM 
Phone: (905) 413-3918  TL: 969-3918 FAX: (905) 413-4920
Internet: csalter@xxxxxxxxxx     Notes: Craig Salter/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA

Naci Dai,
Managing Director

eteration a.s. 
Inonu cad. Sumer sok. Zitas D1-15
Kozyatagi, Istanbul 81090
+90 (532) 573 7783 (cell) 
+90 (216) 361 5434 (phone) 
+90 (216) 361 2034 (fax) 
http://www.eteration.com
mailto:nacidai@xxxxxxx
mailto:naci@xxxxxxxxxxxxx