[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [gmf-dev] GMF build questions...
|
Hi Rich,
Comments:
1. Migrating from Eclipse 3.1 to 3.2
in mid-October would be perfect.
2. Releasing GMF 1.0 on Eclipse 3.2
is still OK. That's what we agreed to in Prague.
3. a) Please note that some of our unit
tests depend on the Eclipse UML2 (richer meta-model for testing).
b) We will definitely
run J-Units on other platforms through some IBM infrastructure. How this
could be integrated in our build process needs to be seen. Let us do some
investigation here.
4. a) Please confirm the sdk feature
will also include the tool side user guides in addition to the runtime
SDK plug-ins.
b) Because the runtime
has some platform specific plug-ins, we will need runtime.<platform>
and sdk.<platform> features (e.g. runtime.win32 and sdk.win32)
c) I suggest leaving
Batik in the runtime feature for now. We separated the dependencies at
the plug-in level in case we get requested a batik-less deployment, but
that is not the case at this point. Can always fix later as needed.
d) I agree that
isolating the ide specific dependencies in a separate feature is needed
for the runtime features.
e) I don't think
we need a toolkit feature, having all in the SDK as Rich suggested is the
way to go. It actually fits very well with how other projects are partitioned
Thanks
- Fred
_________________________________
Frédéric Plante
Rational Software, IBM Software Group
770 Palladium Drive, Ottawa, ON, Canada
tel: (613) 591-7034
"Richard Gronback"
<Richard.Gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
09/08/2005 03:48 PM
Please respond to
"GMF Project developer discussions." |
|
To
| "GMF Project developer
discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [gmf-dev] GMF build questions... |
|
Hi Steve,
1. It is operational now, for the most part. I am traveling back
home today, so should have it cleaned up and exposed tomorrow or over the
weekend. I'd like to start synchronizing with the platform release
schedule as soon as we can. As we have "opted-in" to the
main release for next June, we will need to be synchronized no later than
the Nov. 4th M3 timeframe.
2. Our goal for release 1.0 is to align with 3.2, so it's the minimum requirement
we have. Perhaps we should have a quick conference call next week
to synch up on this and the overall plan?
3. The build also executes the junit tests. This is one of the issues
I mentioned above that will be easier to troubleshoot when I get the CruiseControl
reporting site exposed. This should be done tomorrow. Regarding
the other platforms, I have a Win2K and Linux box available in addition
to the WinXP machine we are using for the CruiseControl builds. Anyone
want to contribute other platforms?
4. Batik seems to be the only 3rd party dependency GMF has, as Antlr looks
to be an EMFT dependency. I have considered packaging it as a dependent
feature, but I'm not sure I see the issue with bundling it as a GMF plug-in.
Are there similar concerns about Ant, JUnit, etc.? Either way,
it shouldn't be a problem to configure options as you list below. Right
now, I have configured the following builds:
- runtime (just those binaries needed to run a GMF-produced application)
- sdk (all graphical definition, generation, and runtime plug-ins, with
generated source feature/plug-in)
- tests (all unit tests, for execution with dependent sdk build)
- examples (all examples, with generated source feature/plug-in)
I'm open to more, but assume this is a good starting point. Again,
as soon as I get our development update site and cruise control reporting
site exposed, we can have a better discussion about these points. Sorry
for the delay.
Best Regards,
Rich
-----Original Message-----
From: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Steven Shaw
Sent: Thu 9/8/2005 8:55 AM
To: gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gmf-dev] GMF build questions...
Hi Rich,
I have some questions about the GMF build that is being instrumented.
1. Is the goal to have this operational for the M2 Eclipse 3.2 milestone?
Sept 23 (?)
2. Is the target going to be against Eclipse 3.2 stream? If so, should
the jar be still binary compatible with 3.1.x ?
3. Are we planning to automate the JUnit runs with the build? If
so, will
it be run against multiple platform targets? Looking at the GEF site,
it
looks like they run tests against linux_gtk and win2k. I'm not sure
if
these are automated are not (I can find out).
4. Deployment issues: It looks like the initial goal is to create a single
jar for clients to consume. However, I'm assuming the Batik and Antrl
plug-ins would remain separate jars? I think this is important because
some clients may not wish to include additional open source jars in their
product for legal reasons. Additionally we should consider alternate
deployment scenarios that may be desirable.
Here's some possibilities:
- Batik extension of Runtime (gmf_runtime_batik.jar + batik.jar)
To
isolate the batik open source dependency
- RCP version of Runtime (gmf_runtime_rcp.jar) For clients wishing
to
create RCP applications
- IDE version of Runtime (gmf_runtime_ide.jar)
Separating out the
IDE dependency
- Runtime (gmf_runtime_rcp.jar + gmf_runtime_ide.jar +
gmf_runtime_batik.jar)
- DSL toolkit (gmf_dsl.jar + Runtime)
Thoughts?
-Steve
________________________________________
Steven R. Shaw
Rational Modeling Platform Diagram Layer Lead
Rational Software | IBM Software Group
770 Palladium Drive, Kanata, ON, Canada, K2V 1C8
tel: 613.591.7979
steveshaw@xxxxxxxxxx
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
Attachment:
winmail.dat
Description: Binary data