[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [wtp-dev] Current Status of Flexible Project Design: Request for Feedback
|
Hi Gorkem,
To clarify the constraint in (2), the resources
referenced by a module will not be allowed to span multiple projects. However,
in our metamodel, modules have the concept of dependent modules. These
dependent modules are allowed to span multiple projects (as it is not a formal
containment relationship). In the case of an EAR, the "modules"
relationship will reference the uris of the WorkbenchModules that compose
the deployable WorkbenchApplication. Other modules will have their dependencies
enumerated (such as a webapp which specifies web lib modules). These modules are
referenced by a special "module:" URI, so that we can refer to a module, even
if that module is not contained in the same project.
Here is a screen shot of our evolving model:
The note "Because ..." refers to the fact that all of the resources
referenced by this model file must be
contained in this project.
Does that answer your question?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind Regards,
Michael D. Elder
Rational Studio / J2EE Tools
Development
IBM RTP Lab
Ext: (919) 543-8356
T/L: 441-8356
mdelder@xxxxxxxxxx
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 4:06 PM
To: wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc:
From: Gorkem Ercan <gorkem.ercan@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] Current Status of Flexible Project Design: Request
for Feedback
Micheal,
I have a few questions concerning the EAR modules. I imagine that the
best way to work within this context is to have separate projects for
each module. (I guess this will be the best practice) but according
to
the item 2, a module will not be able to span more than one project,
so if I were to have an ear module to include two modules, would I
need to put them in in a single project and compromise on dependency
checking? Will the EAR modules (modules that may include other
modules
in general) be handled in a special way?
Regards,
Gorkem Ercan
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:19:32 -0500, Michael Elder
<mdelder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Extended Team and Consumers:
>
> The purpose of this email is
to give you an update regarding the
> state of the flexible project design and implementation. After
much
> discussion of a feasible solution to the problem of arbitrary
structures
> for modules and multiple modules per project, we have found the need
to add
> a few constraints to the problem we are trying to solve. We would
like
> feedback on your opinions concerning these constraints:
>
> (1) The solution will not check dependencies for modules that are
contained
> in the same project. To get the full benefits of inter-module
dependency
> checking, modules must be separated into different projects. We do not
have
> the necessary flexibility in constructing and scoping classpaths on a
level
> more granular than the project level, which would be needed to support
this
> functionality.
>
> (2) The solution will not allow a single module to span more than
one
> project. Within that project, we will have fairly broad flexibility
to
> specify which resources map to which modules. Each module within a
project
> must have its own source folder, but a module may contain more than
one
> source folder. It would be discouraged or completely disallowed for
a
> single source folder to be contained by more than one module.
>
> (3) The solution will not allow more than one server target per module
(and
> really per-project) at a time. The ability to switch this server
target
> (via some action or property setting) will continue to be possible.
Users
> that need the capability to develop for multiple server targets will
need
> to manually switch and test as necessary.
>
> (4) Each module in a project will have its own output folder
structure
> automatically constructed for it. The output structure will match
the
> J2EE-spec output structure required for the module type (for J2EE
modules).
> A new builder will handle this responsibility and work cooperatively
with
> the Java builder to construct a deployable, on-disk representation of
the
> module structure. The necessity for this on-disk structure to match
a
> J2EE-compliant layout is motivated by the requirement to have
in-workbench
> testing, so that users will not have to deal with a deployer
actually
> constructing a deployable module and shipping it off to a server to
test
> their code. This approach is consistent with existing Ant-based
approaches
> and Application Servers which can run in a "debug" mode on disk.
Our
> value-add will be greater automation and integration with the
workbench --
> particularly for incremental based support. The specialized module
builder
> would not be necessary if the source was already in the
appropriate
> J2EE-spec compliant structure. The default creation will still
encourage a
> single module per project, which conforms to the correct J2EE
structure.
>
> (5) Modules will be described using a simple XML format, and each
project
> will contain one .wtpmodules file that will describe all of the
modules for
> that project. The level of tooling to help users create these files is
yet
> to be determined for WTP M4. This would be a great area for
other
> interested developers to suggest and provide tooling (e.g. a Wizard
or
> Editor) to create these files from existing structures.
>
> Many thanks to the patient members of the Eclipse and JDT teams for
helping
> us work through these problems.
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kind Regards,
>
> Michael D. Elder
> Rational Studio / J2EE Tools Development
> IBM RTP Lab
> Ext: (919) 543-8356
> T/L: 441-8356
> mdelder@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> _______________________________________________
> wtp-dev mailing list
> wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
--
Gorkem Ercan
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
