Re: [wtp-dev] Current Status of Flexible Project Design: Request for Feedback
To clarify the constraint in (2), the resources
referenced by a module will not be allowed to span multiple projects. However,
in our metamodel, modules have the concept of dependent modules. These
dependent modules are allowed to span multiple projects (as it is not a formal
containment relationship). In the case of an EAR, the "modules"
relationship will reference the uris of the WorkbenchModules that compose
the deployable WorkbenchApplication. Other modules will have their dependencies
enumerated (such as a webapp which specifies web lib modules). These modules are
referenced by a special "module:" URI, so that we can refer to a module, even
if that module is not contained in the same project.
Here is a screen shot of our evolving model:
The note "Because ..." refers to the fact that all of the resources
referenced by this model file must be
contained in this project.
Does that answer your question?
Michael D. Elder
Rational Studio / J2EE Tools
IBM RTP Lab
Ext: (919) 543-8356
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 4:06 PM
From: Gorkem Ercan <gorkem.ercan@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] Current Status of Flexible Project Design: Request
I have a few questions concerning the EAR modules. I imagine that the
best way to work within this context is to have separate projects for
each module. (I guess this will be the best practice) but according
the item 2, a module will not be able to span more than one project,
so if I were to have an ear module to include two modules, would I
need to put them in in a single project and compromise on dependency
checking? Will the EAR modules (modules that may include other
in general) be handled in a special way?
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:19:32 -0500, Michael Elder
> Extended Team and Consumers:
> The purpose of this email is
to give you an update regarding the
> state of the flexible project design and implementation. After
> discussion of a feasible solution to the problem of arbitrary
> for modules and multiple modules per project, we have found the need
> a few constraints to the problem we are trying to solve. We would
> feedback on your opinions concerning these constraints:
> (1) The solution will not check dependencies for modules that are
> in the same project. To get the full benefits of inter-module
> checking, modules must be separated into different projects. We do not
> the necessary flexibility in constructing and scoping classpaths on a
> more granular than the project level, which would be needed to support
> (2) The solution will not allow a single module to span more than
> project. Within that project, we will have fairly broad flexibility
> specify which resources map to which modules. Each module within a
> must have its own source folder, but a module may contain more than
> source folder. It would be discouraged or completely disallowed for
> single source folder to be contained by more than one module.
> (3) The solution will not allow more than one server target per module
> really per-project) at a time. The ability to switch this server
> (via some action or property setting) will continue to be possible.
> that need the capability to develop for multiple server targets will
> to manually switch and test as necessary.
> (4) Each module in a project will have its own output folder
> automatically constructed for it. The output structure will match
> J2EE-spec output structure required for the module type (for J2EE
> A new builder will handle this responsibility and work cooperatively
> the Java builder to construct a deployable, on-disk representation of
> module structure. The necessity for this on-disk structure to match
> J2EE-compliant layout is motivated by the requirement to have
> testing, so that users will not have to deal with a deployer
> constructing a deployable module and shipping it off to a server to
> their code. This approach is consistent with existing Ant-based
> and Application Servers which can run in a "debug" mode on disk.
> value-add will be greater automation and integration with the
> particularly for incremental based support. The specialized module
> would not be necessary if the source was already in the
> J2EE-spec compliant structure. The default creation will still
> single module per project, which conforms to the correct J2EE
> (5) Modules will be described using a simple XML format, and each
> will contain one .wtpmodules file that will describe all of the
> that project. The level of tooling to help users create these files is
> to be determined for WTP M4. This would be a great area for
> interested developers to suggest and provide tooling (e.g. a Wizard
> Editor) to create these files from existing structures.
> Many thanks to the patient members of the Eclipse and JDT teams for
> us work through these problems.
> Kind Regards,
> Michael D. Elder
> Rational Studio / J2EE Tools Development
> IBM RTP Lab
> Ext: (919) 543-8356
> T/L: 441-8356
> wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev mailing list