Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Extension point for defining devices
Gorkem,

I agree that the end goals are compatible and these should all be considered together.  We have a pretty serious open issue in terms of our current API's.  My assumption is that we will need to "finalize" the current importer API for a 1.0 release and then look seriously at some of these other options as future additions.  I think we probably need to be looking seriously at controlling what else we sign up for relative to the 3.5 release, especially in terms of API's.  In the future, we need to spend significantly more time working with the community as a whole to propose and iteratively develop new API's. 

For those that are not already aware... The API's that currently exist in MTJ were originally created by me in EclipseME to service my own needs with no external input.  I won't claim that they are well suited for all situations.  This was one of the discussion points when it was decided to restart MTJ with the EclipseME code base.  I was convinced by others at the time that what was there worked "well enough" as a starting point and that we would work hard to improve the API/platform part of the code over time.  I guess only time will tell! <grin>

Craig

Gorkem Ercan wrote: 
Please take a look at the MADK proposal[1] that was proposed in the
Eclipse Mobile Industry Working Group [2]. I think the idea is the
same on both proposals.

Also there is an interesting discussion going on related to
downloading packages that are not EPL compatible [3], even when
downloading/installing through p2 there may be legal requirements.

I think this is a good feature that may lower the barriers for
starters and apparently this is a desired feature since it has been
voiced through several sources.


[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/EMIWG/MADKQuickStartProposal
[2] http://wiki.eclipse.org/EMIWG
[3] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=246945#c9

--
Gorkem



On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Adam Abramski <aabramski@xxxxxxx> wrote:
  
As Paula has explained, this is definitely one of RIM's concerns.
Having more flexibility without imposing too much on the plug in
implementers is a better approach in my opinion as well.

Sincerely,
Adam

    
-----Original Message-----
From: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paula Gustavo-WGP010
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:30 AM
To: Mobile Tools for The Java Platform mailing list
Subject: RES: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Extension point for defining devices

Hi danail,

Thanks for your interested on mtj!

Let me see if i understand your correctly your suggestion.
1- mtj will have a declarative way to describe an sdk / devices
2- this declarative way would be published via an extension point
3- each sdk provider (like nokia, mot or rim) would have a plugin that
implements the EP and describe its sdk. The whole sdk also need to be
provided as a set of plugins / binaries
4- the user would just use p2 to find / install / update sdks on his
eclipse
5- mtj would automatically find the installed sdks via the EP

If that's what you mean, I think that it is great idea. But probably
      
it
    
is hard to make it happen. The main issue that I see is that this
      
would
    
require all sdk providers to change their sdk distribution mechanism.
      
So
    
instead of RIM providing a windows installer they would need to
      
provide
    
a p2 repository. This is a high impact on all providers and I don't
      
know
    
if they want to do that. if they don't them mtj would not be able to
support that specific sdk. What I like in the current device importer
solution, which was inherited completely from eclipseme, is that it is
really flexible. Mtj can support any sdk once the importer / editor
      
are
    
implemented. So we don't' force anything on the sdk side. There are
still some improvements that we can do on this area.

Maybe we can talk about proposing that, but we would still need to
support the current solution to be compatible with the sdks that are
already available.

Any thoughts?

:)
gep


-----Mensagem original-----
De: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Em nome de Danail Nachev
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2009 13:07
Para: dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Assunto: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Extension point for defining devices

Hi guys,

First, I want to say that the work you are doing with MTJ has been
      
long
    
awaited and MTJ will nicely complement the existing Eclipse tools
covering large portion of the software development.

So, straight to the point:

I couldn't find a way for a plugin to define new devices. There is a
      
way
    
to define importer, which can be used to detect new types of SDKs and
there is an API, which can be called to add new devices to the
      
registry,
    
but there is no way for a plugin to state:

I'm a SDK for this and this device.

If a plugin can declaratively specify new devices:

* p2 can be used for Java ME SDK installation/update
* a vendor-specific IDE/extension can easily define the supported
devices (w/o complex code)

What do you think?

BR,
--
Danail Nachev
Senior Software Engineer/Development Tools
ProSyst Labs EOOD
-------------------------------------------------
stay in touch with your product.
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
_______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
      
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
_______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev

    
_______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev

Back to the top