Re: [ecf-dev] Two issues I feel that needs a healthydiscussion overbefor

["Remy Suen" <remy.suen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Scott,

> If we end up going with splitting the ECF core plugin I would suggest we
> consider 3 resulting plugins
>
> identity (namespace extension point):  org.eclipse.ecf.core.identity
> container (containerFactory extension point):
> org.eclipse.ecf.core.container
> shared object (sharedObjectFactory extension point):
> org.eclipse.ecf.core.sharedobject

What exactly is going to be identity? The IContainer interface defines
methods that requires Namespaces and IDs, so how do you plan to split
those two apart?

> But before we go too much further in these directions...do people really
> feel this is necessary?  That is, do the size reduction benefits (<
> 136K) obviously outweigh the overhead (addl complexity, more meta files,
> etc) of having multiple plugins?  Perhaps the answer is obviously 'yes',
> but I just want to explore this a little before we just do it.

Tough call, sorting by size within the plugins/ folder do show quite a
few plug-ins that are below the 100kb mark. Perhaps Pascal or Philippe
can comment on this bit. Though I think that the question we need to
ask ourselves right now is "how often do bundles/plug-ins that depensd
on org.eclipse.ecf at the moment actually use the shared object subset
of interfaces/classes?" Going through org.eclipse.ecf.presence, I
notice that pretty much nothing is used besides ID and IContainer, and
we know org.eclipse.ecf.filetransfer is similar per previously
discussed. I'm not really familiar with the other plug-ins, so I can't
comment on those.

Regards,
Rem