Re: [ecf-dev] Two issues I feel that needs a healthy discussion over bef

[Pascal Rapicault <Pascal_Rapicault@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all, 

disclaimer: I've never used ECF in depth.

I may sound a bit old-school and boring,
but making something API is a commitment and has a strong implication on
how things can then evolve. Why am I saying that? Because when I quickly
looked through the code, I only found one internal package, all the others
are API, is this really expected?

I also noticed that the filetransfer
package is located in a bundle named fileshare and it requires the whole
org.eclipse.ecf bundle whereas it should be located in a bundle of its
own (since there is no dependency between the fileshare package and the
filetransfer one) and it only uses 7 classes of o.e.ecf.
In short make sure each functionality
is split appropriately to maximize reusability without pulling the whole
world and in general try to use the smallest EE possible.

Also find attached an experimental org.eclipse.ecf.filetransfer
bundle. It currently hold a copy of 7 classes from o.e.ecf just to show
how little from o.e.ecf was being used and the EE is set to 1.3 but it
could surely be moved  to something smaller like foundation. Note
that this reorganization allowed me to shrink the size of the jars required
to use the filetransfer API from 136K (o.e.ecf 122K + o.e.ecf.fileshare
14k) down to 16Ko (one bundle) which definitely makes it more interesting...

HTH, 

PaScaL

Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ecf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

10/10/2006 05:39 PM

Please respond to
"Eclipse Communication Framework (ECF) developer mailing list." <ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"Eclipse Communication Framework (ECF) developer mailing list." <ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Aniszczyk <zx@xxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	Re: [ecf-dev] Two issues I feel that needs a healthy discussion over        before ECF 1.0...

Hi Remy and everyone,

Yes, I agree these issues both need discussion.  Here's some thoughts
(below). 

Remy Suen wrote:
> <stuff deleted>

> 1.5 is an iffy area and I'm sure everyone understands that. Things
> starts to get more interesting if 
> yfile:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/slewis/Desktop/Eclipse/OSGI/r4.cmpn.pdf
> <cid:part1.03080108.08040605@composent.com>ou'll recall some
past 
> experiments
> playing with ECF on eRCP, we have bug #149024
> (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=149024) filed to
> confirm execution environments (EEs) in that regard.

So I think we need to tease out:

1) Which JRE (1.4 or 1.5)
2) Which EE (CDC or OSGi)
3) Which runtime version (1.0 or 1.1)

And decide for each of these which ECF needs to support.  I've put
this 
comment in bug https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=149024 so
we can follow up there with details about the EE and EE version.

If we stick to just the JRE (1.4 vs 1.5) for the moment, I *think* that
we should move to assuming 1.5 as minimum by the end of November. 

Any comments about that?  It would mean that people would have to
have 
1.5 (rather than 1.4) in order to run much of ECF.  Do people think
that 
end of November is too soon?  Too late?

I'm going to have to respond to the second half of Remy's posting over
the next few days as I've got to get some sleep before Eclipse Summit 
Europe.  I agree his second issue is an important one needing 
discussion/strategy for dealing with it in a general way.  Remy if
it 
doesn't get followed up on in ecf-dev (or perhaps even if it does) 
please file a bug against that issue too so it doesn't get lost.

Thanks,

Scott


_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev

Attachment: org.eclipse.ecf.filetransfer.zip
Description: Zip archive