[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [atf-dev] Proposed reorg of the Xulrunner extension point and the way we interact with Mozilla bundles
|
Mike wrote:
>An email to swt-dev sounds like a plausible way to start.
>Another possibility would be to open a bug on SWT and carry on the
conversation there rather than the mailing list.
>A third possibility might be to send an email to eclipse-pmc and ask
them if they have any advice as to how to engage in a conversation on
the topic.
Thanks!
A bug will be best. I think the responsability lies between SWT and
Platform UI as SWT does not offer extensions, and never did, but they
own the browser.
I trylu think that making Xulrunner easier to consume is in the best
interest of all Eclipse-based projects.
Let's take it from there and see how it flies.
In the meantime, I will have a proposed implementation in the
xulrunner_extension_reorg branch available for everyone to review.
--
Cheers
Philippe
philippe ombredanne | 1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
nexB - Open by Design (tm) - http://www.nexb.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:12 PM
To: 'AJAX Toolkit Framework discussion'; pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [atf-dev] Proposed reorg of the Xulrunner extension point
and the way we interact with Mozilla bundles
An email to swt-dev sounds like a plausible way to start.
Another possibility would be to open a bug on SWT and carry on the
conversation there rather than the mailing list.
A third possibility might be to send an email to eclipse-pmc and ask
them if they have any advice as to how to engage in a conversation on
the topic.
I hope that helps..
Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
From: atf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:atf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Robert Goodman
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:29 PM
To: pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx; AJAX Toolkit Framework discussion
Subject: RE: [atf-dev] Proposed reorg of the Xulrunner extension point
and the way we interact with Mozilla bundles
Philippe
We need to contact the platform team. I'm not quite sure who to contact,
but I guess we can start with the SWT team. They can't implement the
extension point since they are not a plugin, but I would think that they
would have some suggestion on where to start. Maybe some other people in
the community monitoring atf-dev, have some suggestions on who to
contact.
Philippe, I'm not comfortable with putting the propose restrictions on
org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core. The ATF team should be able to change
that plugin to meet it needs. The only reason for putting that
restriction is that the original extension point was implemented in that
plugin. If we have to do a interim solution that requires a plugin in
ATF, then we move that extension point code out into a separate plugin.
Most of the plugins in ATF's CVS are not longer being used, what is one
more plugin that eventually goes away. Maybe we should gut
org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.swt.browser and put the extension point in that
plugin.
My underlying concern is that if the ATF steps up to do this, that the
platform team will not make the effort. There are a number of long range
issues with this support which ATF shouldn't own like managing multiple
XulRunner versions, a GUI switch between version, etc.
Thanks
Bob
Robert Goodman
IBM Emerging Technologies
goodmanr@xxxxxxxxxx
512-838-8824 T.L. 678-8824
"Philippe Ombredanne" <pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: atf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/29/2007 11:28 PM
Please respond to
pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx; Please respond to
AJAX Toolkit Framework discussion <atf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To"'AJAX Toolkit Framework discussion'" <atf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
SubjectRE: [atf-dev] Proposed reorg of the Xulrunner extension point and
the way we interact with Mozilla bundles
Bob wrote:
>1. Why is this XULRunner extension point still in ATF?
>This is something that really should be in the platform. I think that
we should get the platform team involved.
>I understand that it is easier and faster to keep it in the ATF family,
but ATF doesn't own the embedded
>XULRunner browser anymore.
Very good point.
Opening discussion would be great, but IMHO that should not slow us down
in the meantime.
>2. Not having org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core dependent on
org.eclipse.core.
>The whole idea ATF core plugin was to provide base classes that all the
other plugins need.
>As ATF moves forward I can see org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core
becoming more dependent on ATF code plugin.
>I think that two different goals are being intermixed in one document.
I am trying to achieve two goals:
1/ Avoid cross projects dependencies between Eclipse and Mozilla: having
Mozilla bundles depends on Eclipse ATF and Eclipse ATF bundles depend on
Mozilla's.
2/ make it easy to extract and consume the Mozilla bundle with a limited
subset of ATF's, such that folsk that reuse only that (which should be
in the platform) can do it . One example being Max from Jboss.
>a) A XULRunner plugin that is independent of ATF. I think that this
support should be in the platform.
Agreed.
>b) Adoptors want to use org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core independent of
the rest of ATF.
>Why would anybody want to do this? We have had a number of request to
separate out functionality in ATF.
<.....>
>Nobody has requested to be able use eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core
independent of the rest of ATF.
The request was expressed by Max from Jboss, I can express it also on
behalf of Joomla.
They can today tweak the Mozilla provided plugins and then the ATF code,
or they could use straight out of the box without tweaking if we do that
small change.
In anycase there is only one class class in o.e.a.mozilla.ide.core which
provides only static utility code, and is the only ATF dependence that
o.e.mozilla.ide.core has on the rest of ATF. Moving that class around is
a very minor changes, which IMHO makes the overall dependency stories
among our bundles cleaner and better, as there are fewer dependencies.
>I can image that someone may want to use the Browser Tools independent
of the rest of ATF and WTP
>(org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core and org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.ui).
> If that is the real requirement, then we should document that
requirement and we can have a separate discussion on that topic.
I know of one company that does use the mozilla.ide.core and ui
together. And only that part.
That could be a nice to have. And we are not very far from it (not that
we need it per se) but it may even require little modifications,
something like:
- extract org.eclipse.atf.core/org.eclipse.atf.adapter into a new bundle
called org.eclipse.atf.core.resources
- move
org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core/org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core.util.S
ourceLocatorUtil to that new org.eclipse.atf.core.resources bundles
That would probably allow to have mozilla.ide.ui, mozilla.ide.core and
core.resources standalone after a very quick pass.
>I think that this discussion needs to be opened up to a larger audience
than just ATF dev list,
>since it efforts effects people outside of the ATF community.
>While working with the large eclipse community, we may need to come up
with some interim solution.
How would suggest we go doing it?
Should we involve rather platform UI or SWT?
Cordially
--
Cheers
Philippe
http://easyeclipse.org - http://phpeclipse.net - http://eclipse.org/atf
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Goodman [mailto:goodmanr@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:19 PM
To: pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx; AJAX Toolkit Framework discussion
Subject: Re: [atf-dev] Proposed reorg of the Xulrunner extension point
and the way we interact with Mozilla bundles
Philippe
Here are my initial comments.
1. Why is this XULRunner extension point still in ATF? This is something
that really should be in the platform. I think that we should get the
platform team involved. I understand that it is easier and faster to
keep it in the ATF family, but ATF doesn't own the embedded XULRunner
browser anymore.
2. Not having org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core dependent on
org.eclipse.core. The whole idea ATF core plugin was to provide base
classes that all the other plugins need. As ATF moves forward I can see
org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core becoming more dependent on ATF code
plugin. I think that two different goals are being intermixed in one
document.
a) A XULRunner plugin that is independent of ATF. I think that this
support should be in the platform.
b) Adoptors want to use org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core independent of
the rest of ATF. Why would anybody want to do this? We have had a number
of request to separate out functionality in ATF. People wanted the
embedded XULRunner browser support independent of the rest of ATF, so we
worked with the platform team to move it into SWT. A number of ATF
adopters requested that the HTTP server support be moved into WST, which
was done for WTP 2.0. We had request for a version of ATF that ran on
WST without JST, which was done in the latest milestone. There have even
been requests for a version of ATF that is didn't require WTP. Nobody
has requested to be able use eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core independent of
the rest of ATF. I can image that someone may want to use the Browser
Tools independent of the rest of ATF and WTP
(org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core and org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.ui).
If that is the real requirement, then we should document that
requirement and we can have a separate discussion on that topic.
I think that this discussion needs to be opened up to a larger audience
than just ATF dev list, since it efforts effects people outside of the
ATF community. While working with the large eclipse community, we may
need to come up with some interim solution.
Thanks
Bob
Robert Goodman
goodmanr@xxxxxxxxxx
"Philippe Ombredanne" <pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: atf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/29/2007 12:07 PM Please respond to
pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx; Please respond to
AJAX Toolkit Framework discussion <atf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To"'AJAX Toolkit Framework discussion'" <atf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject[atf-dev] Proposed reorg of the Xulrunner extension point and the
way we interact with Mozilla bundles
All:
Please read that proposal and provide comment here in the list.
http://wiki.eclipse.org/ATF/Mozilla
I will be committing code in a branch for everyone to review.
Cordially
--
Cheers
Philippe
http://easyeclipse.org - http://phpeclipse.net - http://eclipse.org/atf
_______________________________________________
atf-dev mailing list
atf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/atf-dev
_______________________________________________
atf-dev mailing list
atf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/atf-dev
