[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] Vote for new CDT features
|
I like that idea. To help promote the CDT base as a platform and to avoid
overload of the term core, I would call it
org.eclipse.cdt.platform-feature.
Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
IBM Rational Software, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Sebastien Marineau <sebastien@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
09/23/2003 10:46 AM
Please respond to
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To
"'cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
RE: [cdt-dev] Vote for new CDT features
I'm partial to option 1 as well -- definitely the easiest for
users. If companies want to bundle a subset of CDT, then they
can "split it apart" and only take the base pieces they wish.
As for the name, that's a good question. org.eclipse.cdt.product
could be misleading; I'm thinking we should almost
use the org.eclipse.cdt-feature plugin (existing one) as the
super-feature, and create one that is the core feature
(e.g. org.eclipse.cdt.core-feature) that maps to what
the cdt-feature does today.
Thoughts?
Seb
>
> Any more comments on this proposal (Sebastien?). It looks
> like the most
> popular option is to create a new set of features that
> contain a superset
> of the CDT features. I'm not sure what to call it,
> org.eclipse.cdt.product, org.eclipse.cdt.all, ...
>
> Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
> IBM Rational Software, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
>
>
> Douglas Schaefer/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 09/18/2003 03:11 PM
> Please respond to
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> To
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [cdt-dev] Vote for new CDT features
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I can buy that. I guess what I'm looking for is the version
> of the CDT
> that people looking to eclipse.org will download for free for
> their daily
> use, or the one that matches the Borland C++BuilderX feature
> set, or the
> one some guy writes about for the C/C++ User's Journal. For
> these people,
> a clean update site with a simple install is a must.
>
> My focus is wide spread adoption of the CDT, yet I can understand the
> various partners focus on their specific customers, and given the
> architecture of the CDT, I think we can keep everyone happy
> :-). I don't
> like the idea of the CVS project explosion, but then that's
> one time pain
> for user's gain. I'll change my vote to +1, +1, -1, which
> given Dave's
> recent vote makes option 1 the leader at the moment.
>
> Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
> IBM Rational Software, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
>
>
> "Alain Magloire" <alain@xxxxxxx>
> Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 09/18/2003 02:45 PM
> Please respond to
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> To
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [cdt-dev] Vote for new CDT features
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Hey all, now that we've extracted the builders out of the CDT
> "platform",
> > the CDT platform features become pretty useless on their
> own. To help
> the
> > user who is simply downloading the CDT from the update
> site, I see two
> > alternatives to make their life easier (and one not):
> >
> > 1) Create new CDT "product" features that include the CDT
> platform and
> the
> > two make builders. This would be one new feature/plugin
> combination for
> > each os.ws we currently have.
> > 2) Include dependencies from the current platform features
> to the two
> make
> > builders and have those who want to remove the builders from their
> > products to hand edit the feature.xml files off stream.
> > 3) Too bad, they'll just have to get used to downloading all the
> features
> > the want individually and we'll deal with the user mistakes in the
> > newgroups/bugzilla.
> >
> > I'd like to see a vote by the various committers on this as
> to which
> > alternative they prefer.
> >
> > I am +1 on option 2, -1 on option 3, and a zero (in more
> ways than one)
> on
> > option 1.
> >
>
> I like:
> (1) +1
> (2) -1
> (3) 0
>
>
> The rational:
> - CDT is also a framework that in itself does not do much except to
> provide
> a "rendez-vous" point for all the modules to work in cooperation.
> It provides basic/common C/C++ environment i.e. CEditor,
> C-Parser, views
>
> etc ...
>
> - The full potential can be reach when "enhance" with the appropriate
> plugins.
>
> - CDT should come with a complete implementation of those
> frameworks, GDB
> for the
> debugger and managed make for the builder etc ..
>
> I can see the complete CDT product i.e. with gdb/mi, managed
> make, GNU
> make
> etc ... as a brand(default) product.
>
> And let other compagnies, TimeSys, Tensillica, QnX have there
> own product
> base on
> the core.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev