Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna?
Thanks Wim!
Before we start to do anything,
Tom, as you did most of the initial contribution, what is your opinion on this?
Same question for Lars, as you did much of the more recent improvements?

Regards

Jonas


Am 17.02.2014 21:13, schrieb Wim Jongman:
Filed: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=428375 (Adopt the E4 tools Model Editor)


On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 5:00 PM, John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think the only location for tools that makes sense is PDE. We don't include plug-in tooling with the core platform because end users don't need it unless they are doing plugin/app development. To me the model editor belongs right alongside the product editor, manifest editors, etc as part of the main PDE install.

You had a concern about the tools needing to evolve in parallel: that is not a problem since PDE is produced in the same build as the platform and they always evolve together. Your other concern was about PDE developers not being as well connected. Any contributors to the tools will be nominated as committers as part of the graduation process, so everyone connected with the tools will continue to have the same access.

John



From:        Jonas Helming <jonas.helming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date:        02/17/2014 09:58 AM
Subject:        Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna?
Sent by:        e4-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



OK, open questions for me are:

1. Where to move: Platform or PDE (as I wrote I rather prefer Platform)
2. Shall we split org.eclipse.e4.tools.services into one bundle which remains in e4 and move the services, which are used by the tools to a new bundle (or maybe just into the tools bundle.

I really would like to get the opinion of committers of the target projects (PDE or Platform). I am willing to contribute here, but it does not make sense, if we do not know, whether you are willing to accept the tools then or which things you require to do it.

Regards

Jonas

Am 14.02.2014 15:54, schrieb Wim Jongman:

The question is, do we want to graduate the tools without full NLS and without testcases and documentation.

My 2 cents: I am happy with the current state of the model editor and would not mind to graduate that. If we graduate "as is" then we get a lot more feedback from the community. We could even build something in the model editor to install the rest of the tooling (from incubation) on request.

About documentation: Lars has documented almost everything so there is no direct need for "official" documentation this instance. However, in time, I think we need to provide "official" documentation from Eclipse. If Lars wants to donate some of his work to become official (and hosted from eclipse.org) then this would be awesome.  I would not be surprised that the bylaws don't allow to point to Lars' site for documentation.

Also we would publish no API.

In other words, I am +1 for graduating the model editor if we still have time.

Cheers,

Wim


On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jonas Helming <jonas.helming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,

I never received an answer to this mail, does no one have a opinion on this? Is anyone still interested in this topic?

Best Regards

Jonas


Am 20.01.2014 19:35, schrieb Jonas Helming:
Hi,

for me the relavant questions are:

1. Which bundles to we want to graduate and move?

IMHO, the Application Model Editor and the e4 project wizards would be most important and already a huge improvement of the situation. Everybody who wants to create a native e4 applications needs this editor.
Far behind, I would consider th CSS editor, but I think it would be acceptable to still install this one.

2. Where do we want to move it?

Until now, most people mentioned, that the e4 tools should be moved to PDE. I personally would prefer to move them to the platform. The editor is really closely connected to the platform, it even accesses some internal API. The editor must also evolve in parallel to the Application Model. Finally I think the developers of the plattform are more connected to the tools.

3. What do we need to do to make this happen?

I think we should identify the shortest path to a good result.

- I don't think it is essential that the editor provides a public API. Extending it is a rather advanced use cases. If people extended a non-graduated tool in the past, I think they can live with internal API or SPI in the future. From an API stability point of view, this does not make a difference.
- We need to check, which bundles must be moved. I am worried most about org.eclipse.e4.tools.services,  it contains parts, which are not only used by the Application Model editor. So we might need to move some things around.
- We need to define our goals for documentation and test coverage

Finally I do not think this will slow down the evolution of the tools. If people want to contribute, they can still do. In turn, I think it makes it easier and more visible to create native e4 applications.

What do you think?

Cheers

Jonas

P.S.: Doug, thanks fro pushing this forward, I think an opinion from a user point of view is very valuable for this discussion



Am 20.01.2014 18:18, schrieb Doug Schaefer:
These tools are equals to the plugin.xml and *.product editors. Not sure what you are getting at below. I’m pretty sure users who need these tools really don’t get it.

Doug.

From: David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: E4 Project developer mailing list <e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, January 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM
To: E4 Project developer mailing list <e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna?

Sorry if this is obvious to others, but is this tool intended to be a "delivery" of the "e4/sdk" product? In the sense it has APIs and/or could be extended? Or it is intended for use only by "Eclipse committers" in making Eclipse IDE?

I ask since the "requirements" are quite a bit different for the two. If simply a "releng tool" it could be provided similar to how we deliver the "releng tools" from Platform (which provides copyright tools, and a validator for MANIFEST and POM versions (and some old cvs 'release' tools not used much these days). While the description is needs improvement, I think it's pretty clear it is not intended to provide API or be extended (therefore "compatibility", etc. is not considered that important ... we tell people to use the same version built with their dev. environment.

But, if meant to be extendable, and provide API, etc, then there are higher criteria.

I should add, it would be "hard" to "build with the SDK" because it depends on some emf components (such as emf.edit.ui?) which is not apart of the "base" EMF we get "early" from EMF.

Hope these comments help inform the final decision.




From:        John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:        E4 Project developer mailing list <e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:        01/19/2014 11:11 AM
Subject:        Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna?
Sent by:        e4-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



If  parts of the e4 tools graduated into PDE, then all active contributors to those tools would be granted PDE commit rights as part of the graduation/restructuring. We did the same thing with commit rights on other parts of e4 that graduated into the platform. So I don't think commit rights will be a problem at all. It does of course require active committers to keep maintaining it wherever it ends up.

John



From:        Lars Vogel <lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxx>
To:        E4 Project developer mailing list <e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:        01/18/2014 05:02 AM
Subject:        Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna?
Sent by:        e4-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



I personally like that we can adjust the tooling as needed. PDE seems very inactive at the moment.

But test, better Javadoc and fixing the outstanding bugs is good in general, no matter if the tools get officially released or not, so no need to hold such activities of.

Best regards, Lars

Am 18.01.2014 09:40 schrieb "Wim Jongman" <wim.jongman@xxxxxxxxx>:
There are things missing in the model editor and in the tooling in general. Most notably unit tests, javadoc and user documentation. We need to fix these before a release can be considered.  

I am also happy to join a dedicated team that tackles this. So that makes two. Who wants to join us?

Regards,

Wim


_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev



_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev



_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev



_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev


_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev




_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev

Back to the top