[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [ecf-dev] Two issues I feel that needs a healthydiscussion overbefore ECF 1.0...
|
Personally I agree that frameworks like ECF should keep as low
requirements as possible. One use of ECF could be clients in embedded
devices and/or mobile phones.
For a UI intensive (and newish) project like Mylar or GMF, using 1.5
is a more simple decision.
(I should also remove the Java 5 stuff from the bulletin board API)
On 10/12/06, Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Scott:
Check out this (fresh) posting from Jeff McAffer (an authority in the matter
:-) ) and the related thread for Europa.
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/cross-project-issues-dev/msg00680.html
IMHO, staying on 1.4 for long is typically better.
I know it mays seems a pain, yet 1.5 sugar is something I have learned to do
without, for the sake of re-usability.
Cordially
--
Cheers
Philippe
philippe ombredanne | 1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
nexB - Open by Design (tm) - http://www.nexb.com
http://easyeclipse.org -
irc://irc.freenode.net/easyeclipse
-----Original Message-----
From: ecf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ecf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Scott Lewis
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:13 PM
To: Eclipse Communication Framework (ECF) developer mailing list.
Subject: Re: [ecf-dev] Two issues I feel that needs a healthydiscussion
overbefore ECF 1.0...
Hi Phillippe,
Thanks for the input.
After further consideration (and some more sleep) I think that requiring 1.5
as soon as November would be a mistake. I know I suggested end of November
in an earlier posting, but I'm now thinking it would be better to stay with
requiring only 1.4 JRE for at least another 6 months in order to keep EE
options as open as possible...at least into 2007. I think that staying with
1.4 for at least 6 months will help keep the barriers to entry low, and ease
ECF adoption during a transition out of incubation.
I would like to use generics and other 1.5 features in ECF provider
implementations, but admittedly this is more programming convenience than
requirement. If a given provider requires 1.5 then so be it, but I don't
want to require 1.5 in the core and API plugins (e.g. presence, datashare,
fileshare/filetransfer, discovery, etc).
Thoughts about collab plugin in response to Erkki's posting...forthcoming.
Scott
Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
Remy:
But, just what EE should the core ECF stand at? If you think we should
stick to 1.4 "for now", just how long is "for now" though?
+1 for using ME as EE, if possible. Beyond the fact that a framework
should impose as minimal depdencies as possible, and the fact that 1.5
is NOT linux distro friendly, it would also make general use of ECF
easier, including possible use for things like provisioning in the
platform.
ME being for sure a better option than 1.4.
Or more precisely to match the Eclipse platform core plugins:
Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment:
CDC-1.0/Foundation-1.0,J2SE-1.3
Now that's always a bummer when you code not to have the laest
goodies...
Yet, imho the benefits of wider portability far outweights missing bits
of the latest goodies.
Which point to one important thing: the EE SHOULD always be specified in
the manifest.
That's the case for ECF, yet not the case for the Jxta implementation @
OSUOSL.
And that's valid regardless of the the EE chosen of course.
+1 for refactoring the collab plugin and exposing as an examplary
implementation rather than an example.
The same way the JDT is an examplary -- not an example-- implementation.
Just my +2 cents :-)
_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev
