Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: RES: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Automatic sdk install extension point
I may be missing something, but I'm not sure this has a big impact.  My rememberance of this code is that the devices are unmarshalled when the device registry is first consulted.  Once that is done, everything is in memory.  I would assume we could relatively easily hook this startup to call the registered SDK to create the instances at that time.  The only thing that we would need to make sure to do is to not persist those devices.  That can be a simple flag on the device instance to let the system know how it was originally created and those instances just never get persisted.

The advantage to not doing persistence is that we don't have to be aware of changes to externally registered SDKs.  The SDK's always send all available devices.  This should be a relatively simple implementation if we don't have to manage possible updates to the list.

Thanks,
Craig

On Mar 17, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Paula Gustavo-WGP010 wrote:

Hi craig,
 
Thanks for the comments.
 
You raised a good point about the persistence. Initially a thought that it would make sense to always persistent all devices and then in the next startup, see if anything changed and do the update (remove and/or add devices). But reading to what you wrote, maybe it makes sense to just keep everything in memory. But I think that this approach will have a bigger impact on the code since currently everything is somehow based on what is persisted. I will take a look at the code to see how to do it
 
J
gep
 
De: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Em nome de Craig Setera
Enviada em: domingo, 15 de março de 2009 22:54
Para: Mobile Tools for The Java Platform mailing list
Assunto: Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Automatic sdk install extension point
 
Looking at this, I think there is too much emphasis on SDK "install".  Install implies that something needs to be done.  In reality, I think it is really just an SDK.  My inclination would be an extension point named:

org.eclipse....sdk

With a sequence of 1...* "sdk" elements.  I personally don't think these are installers at all.  In addition, I think it needs to be made clear that there isn't *any* device persistence on the part of the platform for this.  The SDK implementation will create the instances each time they are queried and the resulting device needs to stay with the same name/identifier so projects that reference the device will continue to see the device.

Craig

Paula Gustavo-WGP010 wrote:
Hi,
 
I Just updated mtj wiki with a brief initial proposal for the extension point.
 
Comments are welcome,
 
I’m working on an initial prototype of it. Once I have something I create a patch and attach to bugzilla.
 
J
gep
 



 
_______________________________________________
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