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
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:
I Just updated mtj wiki with a brief
initial proposal for the extension point.
I’m working on an initial prototype
of it. Once I have something I create a patch and attach to bugzilla.
_______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev