Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [papyrus-rt-dev] Papyrus Designer dependencies in Oomph setups
Hi,

Well, the only objection to changing to much at this point in time would be that we are are really late in 0.8 release cycle. The idea of moving the idea of moving the dependencies of these plugins to other existing features is probably something that we should do post-0.8. I just realized that I get confused about why we even need these explicit dependencies anyway, now seeing the proposed Gerrit change where I see that for the common.base plugin we already have a dependency from an existing plugin (in the code-generator) to this plugin. Then why do we even need an explicit dependency to it? Anyway, I suggest that we continue that discussion post-0.8 and decide what to do with the dependencies to the remaining two plugins. I have a strong feeling that the common.base dependency belongs to the code-generator feature and the cpp.library dependency belongs to the C++ language feature.

/Peter Cigéhn

On 18 October 2016 at 17:43, Ernesto Posse <eposse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:30 AM Peter Cigéhn <peter.cigehn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,

Regarding objections, I have a hard time knowing who would object to the removal. I have always assumed that you, Ernesto, it the one with the best insight into why we even have these dependencies to the Designer plugins... :)

Indeed, but I just wanted to make sure that there are no uses elsewhere, considering the discussion on consistency at today's synchronization meeting and specially since I've been away for a couple of weeks, so I'm just getting up to speed with the new build.
 

Just to get your confirmation. So we are talking about only leaving dependencies to the following two plugins:

org.eclipse.papyrus.designer.languages.common.base
org.eclipse.papyrus.designer.languages.cpp.library

Correct.
 

If these two are the only one lefts, then I assume that we could have a choice of adding these dependencies to two of our existing features (as proposed in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=505416#c63)


Makes sense. I just pushed a gerrit (with you, Celine and Christian as reviewers), but I didn't add these plugins to either feature. I can do that as part of this Gerrit, or should I do that separately?
 
Either the code-generator feature (org.eclipse.papyrusrt.codegen-feature.feature.group) or the core C++ feature (org.eclipse.papyrusrt.umlrt.cpp.feature.feature.group). It feels rather natural that the C++ feature at least have the dependency to the org.eclipse.papyrus.designer.languages.cpp.library since the C++ default language descriptor is the one that brings in and needs the C++ primitive types library. The other "common.base" plugin I don't really know what it is all about.

The "common.base" is used for incremental generation: we detect changes in the model using some classes from that common.base plugin. Perhaps there is another way of implementing it that does not depend on Designer, but I do not know. This was code written a long time ago by Toby, which is no longer active in the project.

 
/Peter Cigéhn

On 18 October 2016 at 17:21, Ernesto Posse <eposse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Right. I'll push a gerrit to check, but there are two sets of changes:

1) to the setup models (tester and developer)
2) to the manifest of oeprt.codegen.cpp

My question is whether you are ok with each of these.

I'll add you as a reviewer.




On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:16 AM Céline JANSSENS <celine.janssens@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Ernesto,

 

Be careful, because sometimes, deleting a plugin from a Manifest doesn’t seem to raise any issue, but when building the plugin, it can break some dependencies.

You can at least test it through Gerrit ;)

 

Regards

Céline

 

 

De : papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@eclipse.org [mailto:papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Ernesto Posse
Envoyé : mardi 18 octobre 2016 17:11


À : papyrus-rt developer discussions <papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Objet : Re: [papyrus-rt-dev] Papyrus Designer dependencies in Oomph setups

 

We had the oep.designer.languages.common.profile plugin in the oeprt.codegen.cpp plugin. It's in the manifest. I do not remember why it was there. I just tried removing it and there doesn't seem to be a problem, so we can remove that as well.

 

So are there any objections to these changes?

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:07 AM Céline JANSSENS <celine.janssens@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yes. The question is: Do we use the oep.designer.languages.common.profile feature in Papyrus-RT ?

 

If not, let it implicit

If Yes, we should add it explicitly.

 

Céline

 

 

 

De : papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@eclipse.org [mailto:papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Peter Cigéhn
Envoyé : mardi 18 octobre 2016 17:03


À : papyrus-rt developer discussions <papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Objet : Re: [papyrus-rt-dev] Papyrus Designer dependencies in Oomph setups

 

Hi,

 

If the oep.designer.languages.common.profile gets added implicitly, then that is something that we cannot do anything about I guess. At least as long as we don't add the dependency to it explicitly ourselves, I am fine with that.

 

/Peter Cigéhn

 

On 18 October 2016 at 16:59, Céline JANSSENS <celine.janssens@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Peter,

 

In RCP this is what I did. I reference dependencies of the following plugins on the rcp feature (as I don’t know exactly which feature requires those plugins)

 

·         org.eclipse.papyrus.designer.languages.common.base

·         org.eclipse.papyrus.designer.languages.cpp.library

 

And when building RCP, the “oep.designer.languages.common.profile” dependency is added implicitly

 

Regards

Céline

 

 

 

De : papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@eclipse.org [mailto:papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Peter Cigéhn
Envoyé : mardi 18 octobre 2016 16:44
À : papyrus-rt developer discussions <papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Objet : Re: [papyrus-rt-dev] Papyrus Designer dependencies in Oomph setups

 

Hi,

 

Yet one more aspect to iron out of the 0.8 release I guess... :)

 

I need to double check though since you mention one plugin that I cannot see referenced in the tester setup (and thus also the end-user setup that Christian currently is updating for the 0.8 release).

 

The oep.designer.languages.common.profile I cannot see referenced from the tester setup. And I would not expect us to really have a dependency to it either. To my knowledge we do not use any of the profiles from Designer since we decided to go the custom RtCppProperties profile that it specific to the code-generator in Papyrus-RT.

 

So what I then would expect is to only have 

 

org.eclipse.papyrus.designer.languages.common.base

org.eclipse.papyrus.designer.languages.cpp.library

 

in the Oomph setup files.

 

But as we have discussed here https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=505416#c63 we should probably add the dependencies to some existing feature (or add a new feature). You a free to follow up on my comment in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=505416#c67.

 

If we do that, then we do not have to keep track of these implicitly in the Oomph setup files, and we can easier align the Oomph setups and the RCP.

 

/Peter Cigéhn

 

On 18 October 2016 at 16:02, Ernesto Posse <eposse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi everyone.

 

We noticed that the "Open CDT Editor" option still appears in the context menu in both the tester and developer Oomph setups. This is because the setups still have a dependency on oep.designer.languages.cpp.cdt.texteditor.

 

We also have a dependency on 

 

- oep.designer.languages.common.extensionpoints

- oep.designer.languages.common.base

- oep.designer.languages.common.profile

- oep.designer.languages.cpp.library

 

but we only need the last three, as we are no longer using the extension points.

 

Are there any objections to remove the unused designer dependencies from the setup models?

 

I'm still familiarizing myself with the new build infrastructure, so I don't know if any changes here might yield something inconsistent with the POMs.

 

--

Ernesto Posse

Zeligsoft

 


_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev

 


_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev

 

_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev

_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev

_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev


_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev

_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev


Back to the top