[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: FW: [wtp-dev] Eclipse 3.1.1 & WTP 1.5
|
It really depends on the scope of the 2nd service pack.. if we're talking about minor bug fixes etc, it would always be nice to receive a new update on the 1.0 release line, but I think some of the changes we are awaiting on in
1.5 will change API (even if to a minor degree..). I think the thing that we need most is a clear definition of components that will be backwards in-compatible with Eclipse 3.1 and why/what APIs they are using. This will help us identify the amount of work needed in creating a "compatibility bridge", and if such a thing is even feasible.
On 1/29/06, Tim Wagner <twagner@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Also, there's been discussion of
whether a 1.0.2 (i.e., a second service pack to the 1.0 line) would be useful
to adopters. Please let me know if that's the case, so I can represent
your opinion in PMC discussions. Thanks,
-t
Aside from the navigator, that's been mentioned
already, there's other things in the 3.2 stream that we in WTP will need or
want to move to . Tabbed property pages, improved exclusion filters, and (I
think maybe) some subtle changes in EMF, some improvements in document
threading, improvements in undo management. And .. I'm sure even other things
I'm not even aware of.
Bluntly
put, the problem with "minimizing the dependancy" and maintaining
compatibility is that it takes extra work. Investigation if even feasible, if
so implementations of "bridges", not to mention it would at least
doubling the testing effort.
Because
of that extra cost, I don't think we (in the core of WTP) are motivated to
pursue. We realize this may cause some to investigate the trade-off of
staying on 3.1/wtp 1.0 or migrating to 3.2/wtp 1.5 .. but .. I dont' think
there's a "business case" for us changing our current plan. Of
course, As Arthur implied in another post, others are most welcome to
investigate, write bridges, and do the extra testing. We certainly wouldn't
"stand in the way" of that sort of effort (that is, we'd investigate
bug reports/patches that made it easier for others to do), but there's only so
much work we can contain.
Marshall,
I would be interested in the motivation and specficis for your question ... I
assume the timing or life cycle of jboss ide? Are there technical reasons of
not moving forward on to 3.2/wtp 1.5?
BTW,
if there are specific component-features you need to be compatible with 3.1,
such as the server features, you might want to investigate that specific
requirement, since server features are sort of isolated, and likely not
impacted as much by the 3.1/3.2 differences. But .. I suspect it would be you
that would have to do the investigation ... I have enough trouble getting our
server committers to do smoke tests :).
All
that said, certainly N-1 or N-2 backwards compatibility is our long term goal
and philosopy .. but ... I personally do not thing we can afford that extra
work this release.
Thanks
for your continued support.
Hey everyone... I read the thread about a month back mentioning the fact that
WTP 1.5 will be solely based on Eclipse 3.2. I was curious what components are
requiring what functionality of Eclipse 3.2, and if it was at all possible to
minimize that dependency.
--
Marshall Culpepper
marshall.culpepper@xxxxxxxxx
JBoss Eclipse IDE Lead, JBoss Inc. _______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
--
Marshall Culpepper
marshall.culpepper@xxxxxxxxxJBoss Eclipse IDE Lead, JBoss Inc.