[udig-devel] Map viewer details.

[Miles Parker <milesparker@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jul 14, 2010, at 11:18 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> 
> A small point:  the rcp-feature you found is part of a training
> exercise. I personally don't use uDig+RCP+IResource but I know that
> others do. If you get to the point of wanting to list your udig map
> file in a normal eclipse project please give us a shout and start up a
> net.refractions.udig.resources plug-in to start holding the
> integration code.

Actually, I will probably just be referencing the ecore from my own ecore or pulling it from the project. It looks like I can probably create whatever Project I want from scratch from another ecore model and then edit it from there. But it doesn't look as though Map is really the root object at all. I think it makes sense to persist and reference an entire project as is, right? Is there any doc on internal.ecore that you can point me to?

Also, it doesn't look like you guys have a MapViewPart implementing IViewPart, right? I'm going to go ahead and create one, I think. (I'm using views more and more for my parts as you have so much more programmatic control over them among other things -- they end up working out well for my usages.) If it turns out ok, I'll send back a patch or whatever.

> Note that the main library we depend on is LGPL; it does meet the
> EPL/LGPL restrictions in that the library is available is source code
> form ready to compile etc...

Ah, I'm assuming you mean GeoTools there. There is always the route of putting the dependencies on a different site (they seem stable anyway) and then hooking into the update site from there. With the new discovery mechanism, that works much better than one would think given all the trauma with provisioning in Eclipse in the past. In fact, AMP's 3D stuff has a non-approced dependency and I'm still able to offer the download off of Eclipse -- just need to have a disclaimer, e.g. http://www.eclipse.org/amp/installing/about_discovery.php. So you shouldn't have any problems with that from eclipse labs as long as you don't actually *host* the LGPL from there. Just FYI.
> 
> When we started the EPL was not defined yet and the only thing
> companies were willing to invest in was LGPL.

Yeah. I think weak copy-left makes a lot of sense actually. I don't know if you've seen these but Chris Aniszczyk had a nice blog on that recently. And Mike M.'s take on LGPL is also illuminating. (I'm sure you've seen the recent stuff re: GPL but Mike's been very clear that that does *not* mean there is an issue with LGPL.)

http://aniszczyk.org/2010/02/08/eclipse-symbian-and-the-rise-of-the-weak-copyleft/

http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/2009/04/30/lgpl-pain/