[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Extension point for defining devices - Back onTrack
|
The basic idea that I have in my head goes something like this:
* Introduce a new ISDK interface into the MTJ models.
** ISDK has a name
** ISDK manages a list of IDevice instances
** There are likely other things to go here and I believe that Diego is
already proposing this interface
* The current device importer implementations is altered to implicitly
create a new ISDK with the created devices
* All of the UI is updated to use the SDK's within the IDE (the device
selector primarily)
* A new extension point is added to register an ISDK instance.
** This extension point would specify the "name" of the SDK
** The extension point would specify the implementing class for the ISDK
instance
There is likely more to it, but this seems like the basics. The
implication here is that an ISDK is entirely responsible for the devices
being managed. How and where those devices come from is not part of the
system. The instances can be generated "on the fly" as necessary by the
SDK, or stored away some where. The core MTJ functionality would not
attempt to persist or resurrect device that are owned by an SDK. This
also implies that the current implementations for UEI and such would
need to be altered to do the device persistence themselves.
This is the basic idea I've been pondering for this. In the end, it
isn't well formed enough to be considered for Galileo in my mind.... We
need to continue the discussion to figure out if this works at all and
what would need to be done to make it work. I haven't looked seriously
at the JRE extension points to see how close or far this proposal is
from the JRE definition.
Thanks,
Craig
Christian Kurzke wrote:
Hildum Eric-XFQ473 wrote:
This would probably impact projects, which associate one or more
devices with the projects. How would we reestablish these associations?
This raises an interesting question:
Should a project be associated with an "SDK" or with a "Device".
e.g. If a project is associated with a Device, and there is more than
one SDK providing (posible updated) support for the same Device, how
would this be handled.
Or, when an updated SDK is providing support for the same devices,
should the project be automatically using the newer SDK?
This may lead to problems where a developer wants to temporarily try
out multiple SDKs for the same device.
My recommendation is that the project association is with a
combination of "SDK ID and Device ID", and no behind the scenes
changes to surprise the developer.
I think something like the JDT VmInstall ID. see:
http://help.eclipse.org/stable/topic/org.eclipse.jdt.doc.isv/reference/extension-points/org_eclipse_jdt_launching_vmInstalls.html
Btw, Danail, thanks for the idea with the JDT VM registration analogy,
i think this is a very good reference for how we can solve this.
