Re: RES: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Extension point for defining devices

[Danail Nachev <d.nachev@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, this is one use case I was having in mind. I didn't mean that
device importer should be removed or unsupported somehow. My proposal is
just for adding another way for SDK distribution.

Imagine this: a vendor distributes an Eclipse extension, which enhance
the user experience when developing for specific platform/device. The
idea is that along with the other plugins, an SDK can be shipped with
this Eclipse extension. Currently, the user would be required to
manually go and import the SDK. Using this new extension point, the SDK
will be automatically installed.

Just to note that similar functionality exists for Installed JREs - the
user can manually add new JREs, but JREs can be defined by a plugin
(they appear locked in the list, because they cannot be really removed
or changed).

BR,
--
Danail Nachev
Senior Software Engineer/Development Tools
ProSyst Labs EOOD
-------------------------------------------------
stay in touch with your product.
-------------------------------------------------

Paula Gustavo-WGP010 wrote:
> 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,