The particular case I
am thinking of is developing against two different servers at the same time.
If I have my project associated with both Tomcat and WebLogic (because I
trying to make sure my code stays interoperable), there will have to be two
separate assembly directories so that the two don’t collide. I don’t think
that we should assume anything about how a server would assemble the project.
The assemblers should start with the source files and the java output
directories and take it from there. Some (like Tomcat) will have to copy; some
will not have to copy anything.
-
Konstantin
From:
wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chuck Bridgham
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 11:59
AM
To: General discussion of
project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] For review:
Alternate flexible workspace proposals
I agree more
details/design is needed for the "web" source folders... The
output directory could be optional or better yet, the server could determine
if any additional assembly is required.
I don't think the output
location would change depending on server location because it is intended to
specify spec level requirment, not server specific metatdata
locations.
We need to support the Tomcat
case where a single output location can be assembled, and this content would
either be "built" at development time, or assembled at publish
time.
What are your
thoughts?
This proposal would come from
WTP initially, as it is really solving a domain specific
problem.
Thanks - Chuck
Rational J2EE Tooling
Team Lead
IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
Email:
cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 919-254-1848 (T/L:
444)
|
"Konstantin
Komissarchik" <kosta@xxxxxxx>
Sent by:
wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
09/08/2005 01:49
PM
|
Please respond
to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural
issues." |
|
|
To |
"General
discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
<wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
cc |
|
|
Subject |
RE: [wtp-dev]
For review: Alternate flexible workspace
proposals |
|
We
definitely like the direction that this is heading in. :)
The combination of 2
and 4 should give a tremendous amount of flexibility to the users. I am a bit
confused by 3 (“web” source folders). What would the platform provide to
support this? Associating an output directory with these source folders seems
a bit questionable too. Isn’t the output location going to change for web
folders depending for which server the project is being assembled?
-
Konstantin
From:
wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chuck Bridgham
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005
12:04 PM
To: General
discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: [wtp-dev] For review:
Alternate flexible workspace proposals
Hi
everyone,
Please review the
document posted below, here is the first section:
Recently we have had two
very productive meetings with the eclipse platform team, in understanding some
of
the proposals
for V3.2 that give WTP more options in regards to flexible
workspaces/projects. During these
meetings 4 proposals were discussed that tackle different aspects of
"flexible workspaces" Much of the existing
flexible project
internal api is an implementation that satisfies many of the requirements
declared last year.
Many of these scenarios should be solved at
the platform level, and our current WTP api has a few serious
restrictions that forces us to re-evaluate our direction.
http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/jst/components/j2ee/proposals/WTPFlexibleProjectProposals.html
Please respond with your
feedback soon.
Thanks -
Chuck
Rational J2EE Tooling
Team Lead
IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
Email:
cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 919-254-1848 (T/L:
444)_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
