RE: [atf-dev] Proposed source code the Xulrunner extension

["Philippe Ombredanne" <pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx>]

Javier wrote:
>I just tried to run with your latest changes (from Sept 7), and ran
into some issues.
Thanks and sorry for the late reply!

>First, the XULRunner builds you posted on sourceforge.net 
>do not have plugin.xml files (necessary to implement the "xulrunner"
extension point).  
>I copied the file from the XR plugin on ftp.mozilla.org.
Tha is on purpose. The extension point is now contributed in other
plugins.
You need to pull from the branch those plugins:
org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.swt.browser
org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.swt.browser.carbon.macosx
org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.swt.browser.win32.win32.x86
org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.swt.browser.gtk.linux.x86


>However, then I got an error that "bundleId" was not specified.  
>I don't understand why this is needed in the plugin.xml.  
>From what I can gather from the XulrunnerExtensionReader.java code, 
>the "bundleId" is needed in order to find the full path of the packaged
XR build.  
>Isn't there another way to query the plugin location?  
>It seems odd to require the plugin.xml extension point to specify its
containing plugin "bundleId".
I agree it seems odd. The revision exteiosn introduces an indirection
such that you have:
@ mozilla a pure osgi bundle with no ATF dep
@ eclipse a bundle that exposes an expenstion point
@ eclipse a series of bundles that extend that extension and have a dep
on xulrunner @ mozilla
The bundle id tell the extension which bundle to look for.

This way it removes this weird quasi circular dependecy where the
Xulrunner bundles @ mozilla depended on the atf.core bundle @ eclipse,
and the atf.core bundle @ eclipse could not really work without having
the @mozilla bundle installed

>In fact, now that I look at the code, we already have it as the
"pluginId" 
>variable in the XulrunnerExtensionsReader.getXulRunners () method.  
>This should be all we require, correct?
Actually we need both.
The names may not best picked as the best. The pluginId is the plugin
that contributes to the extnsion point. It is the standard stuff
provided by the registry. It is just used for logging purpose.
The bundleId exposed as an extension attribute is the bundle where to
pick a xulrunner rootpath. So it point to the the ID of the Xulrunner
bundle @ mozilla.
I renamed the pluginId varibale to contributorId for the sake of
clarity.


--
Cheers
Philippe



-----Original Message-----
From: Javier Pedemonte [mailto:jhpedemonte@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 3:11 PM
To: pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx; AJAX Toolkit Framework discussion
Subject: Re: [atf-dev] Proposed source code the Xulrunner extension


On 9/7/07, Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have committed that in the branch.

I just tried to run with your latest changes (from Sept 7), and ran into
some issues.

First, the XULRunner builds you posted on sourceforge.net do not have
plugin.xml files (necessary to implement the "xulrunner" extension
point).  I copied the file from the XR plugin on ftp.mozilla.org.

However, then I got an error that "bundleId" was not specified.  I don't
understand why this is needed in the plugin.xml.  From what I can gather
from the XulrunnerExtensionReader.java code, the "bundleId" is needed in
order to find the full path of the packaged XR build.  Isn't there
another way to query the plugin location?  It seems odd to require the
plugin.xml extension point to specify its containing plugin "bundleId".

In fact, now that I look at the code, we already have it as the
"pluginId" variable in the XulrunnerExtensionsReader.getXulRunners ()
method.  This should be all we require, correct?


Javier Pedemonte
ATF Developer