Thanks
David.
Can
you please provide some rationale or user cases on the priority? I am
not sure I understand how the dynamic of different SDK providers
providing priorities works, and what the expected behaviour is.
Thanks.
Ken Wallis
Team Lead - Eclipse Tools
Research In Motion
905-629-4746 x14369
Hello
Ken,
Follows some answers to your questions :)
Regards,
David Marques
Ken Wallis wrote:
Unfortunately, Jon is away on vacation this week. I am not in complete
touch with the work he has been doing, and his complete thoughts on
requirements, but I would like us to provide feedback on this. I will
try to be a good proxy. ;)
I think that this approach will, as everyone suggests, be more flexible,
and allow the build hook implementers to decide what they are interested
in, and insert functionality into the build process where they need to.
I believe this will address some of our concerns and answers some of
Jon's questions through re-design. ;)
I think there are a couple of questions from Jon's email still
outstanding:
1) How is priority used? Is this if an SDK provides multiple build
hooks, and allows us to control in what order they are executed? Or is
there some other meaning? Is this global priority for all build hooks?
This
is a global priority between hooks.
2) Does the project reference in the callback provide access to
everything a build hook may require? Here, I am not so sure I can
accurately indicate what we might need versus what is accessible, but I
guess the question will have to remain outstanding until Jon's return.
The
IMTJProject interface should provide everything a build hook might
require.
3) How do we return errors to MTJ from a build hook callback, and how
would MTJ handle that? Is it just through CoreException?
In
case any exception is thrown by the hook, it should be threated as if
it was an error raised internally by the builder. This solution of
throwing a CoreException follows the standard way for of raising build
errors on IncrementalProjectBuilder, so I guess the answer to your
question (Is it just through CoreException?) is YES.
Thanks!
Ken Wallis
Team Lead - Eclipse Tools
Research In Motion
905-629-4746 x14369
-----Original Message-----
From: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Craig Setera
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:46 AM
To: Mobile Tools for The Java Platform mailing list
Subject: Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] MTJ Build Hooks requirements
I'm good with it.
It would be nice to get input from the other potential "stakeholders"
of this extension point.
On Apr 14, 2009, at 7:44 AM, David Marques wrote:
Hi Craig,
Well I think it would not help much in case the hook acts on the
last states of the build process, since it would be called several
times yet. I think we should keep your initial proposal and document
that the hook providers should keep their hooks "lightweight".
How does it sound to you ??
Regards,
David Marques
Craig Setera wrote:
David,
I do share your concerns... One possible idea... Have the callback
return a boolean. If true, we continue to call that callback for
that particular project/state. If false, we don't call that hook
for that callback any more. That way the hook is still completely
in control of what hook state/project combinations the hook will be
called for.
Just a thought. It may be too complex.
Craig
On Apr 14, 2009, at 7:28 AM, David Marques wrote:
Hi Craig,
I like your idea to generalize the hooks and make them see the
build system as a "state machine". I have some concerns regarding
the overhead of calling all registered hooks, but let's hope hook
providers will do their job right :)
Well if everyone agrees on it, I will do the suggested changes.
Regards,
David Marques
Craig Setera wrote:
Finally found some time to look through your documents and look
through Jon's questions. I hate to even make a suggestion this
late in the game, but I'm going to anyway <grin>
In terms of the filtering, I think that we should just go ahead
and call the registered hooks every time. We should leave it to
the hook implementor to query the currently selected device or
anything else of interest from the MTJ project instance and
decide if they want to do anything within the hook. That way we
don't need to depend on a name matching routine or what the
various SDK's decide they want to use for the identifiers. In
addition, it is much more flexible for the hook implementor in
terms of how they decide what they want to do and when. We
should document (somewhere) that this determination needs to be
done as quickly as possible in the hook's implementation.
To answer one of Jon's other questions, I think it may make sense
to generalize the pre/post build to include the *possibility* of
more states. (while limiting it for now). In theory, we have
lots of build states:
- Pre Build
- Pre Preprocessing
- Post Preprocessing
- Pre Compile
- Post Compile
...
- Post Build
If we create the IMTJBuildHook interface to have a single
callback method that looks something like:
public void buildCallback(IMTJProject project, BuildStep step,
IProgressMonitor _monitor) throws CoreException
We can then make BuildStep (or whatever we want to call it) be an
Enumeration. I would suggest that until we have more time to
work through the details, that there would be only the two
initial BuildSteps in the enumeration of PRE_BUILD and
POST_BUILD. With that said, this approach would be more
extensible in the future and we could add new steps in the future
for use by interested hook builders. If we do this, it should be
documented that unexpected callback types should be *ignored* by
the hook.
Thoughts? I know it is a departure from your current design, but
I do think it is more flexible and meets some of the requirements
that I (think I) hear from Jon for their use. I apologize again
for throwing this into the mix so late... I will try to do a
better job of staying on top some of this stuff.
Craig
David Marques wrote:
Hi Craig,
I see your point, although mtj does not use the ISDK interface
anywhere yet, so for now it would not work. How about doing this
change latter when the ISDK interface is used by MTJ ??
Regards,
David Marques
Craig Setera wrote:
Sorry... As usual lately, I'm swamped. I guess I have a
concern with the SDK name being used as the identifier in the
general case... in particular when we get the new SDK extension
point up and going. It seems to me that we likely need to add
a getIdentifier() method to the SDK object and that that name
will be the SDK name by default for "imported" Devices/SDKs.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
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.
