[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [buckminster-dev] Dependency Visualization
|
Hi Achim,
This discussion is not simple and potentially endless, and that's why I
refuse to engage in it anymore.
I'm currently working on two other Eclipse-based projects and I need to
focus. If the need arises to use EMF in those projects, I won't
hesitate, I can assure you.
I was in need of a build system badly, and I'll continue my pursuit,
although not necessarily along this track.
Thanks,
Dann
Achim Demelt wrote:
Dann,
I'm not sure that what I'm going to write will change your mind, but I'll
try anyway.
I am using both EMF and Buckminster very intensively. I have built products
based on EMF. Built, of course, with Buckminster. I can run EMF-based code
generators during my automated build with Buckminster. Yes, EMF is already
running in my headless Buckminster. So I guess I know what I'm talking
about.
EMF will not introduce any significant overhead to a typical Buckminster
installation. The runtime JARs are _really_ small. And there's only few of
them. At runtime, I'd argue that it may even _decrease_ Buckminster's memory
footprint.
Installation-wise, I predict that people will see less of these "cannot
install XY" problems with Eclipse 3.5. That's for two reasons: One, p2 has
matured a lot in 3.5. Two, people (i.e. plug-in providers) have learned how
to specify their dependencies correctly. They used to be sloppy with this,
and while the old update manager accepted a lot of crap, p2 threw their
failures into the faces of their users. I learned this, I'm sure others
have, too.
I won't reiterate all the benefits that EMF will bring. But I hope that I
could mitigate some of your fears.
Regards,
Achim
Dann Martens wrote:
Here we go again :)
I feel some of the reply you've formulated doesn't address what I've
tried to convey.
As far as Buckminster is concerned, I have managed to build a complete
working build system with additional plug-ins without any need of EMF,
already two years ago. I see no compelling reason to introduce EMF now,
as what I feel is needed to further Buckminster is totally unrelated.
I'm interested in having Buckminster stable (which it isn't) and in
contributing back what I added myself at that point. I really see no
reason at all to warrant this diversion. This has nothing to do with the
qualities of EMF itself, but I will not support this decision.
We can argue and misunderstand each other as much as you want, but this
feels like a real waste of my time. And I'm sure yours as well. For a
silly build tool, no less.
Best regards,
Dann