Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Feature Restructuring

[Wim Jongman <wim.jongman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I took a stab at visualizing the features. I have started with the core and the filetransfer features and we can work our way down. I have tried to be as complete and componized as possible. 

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1be8k_HqSqXN2nMHLOiVf6o8mWeLs0mVMNHD4Qnujv80/edit?usp=sharing

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 12/5/2013 6:26 AM, Markus Alexander Kuppe wrote:

<stuff deleted>

Where is this discussion happening? p2-dev or on a bug?

Both.  p2-dev thread:

http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/p2-dev/msg05350.html

It's probably about time to send another note to p2-dev saying (essentially)...'now we are going to go through with these changes'.

Here's the platform releng bug recently opened by David Williams (not originally on this issue specifically, but this issue is where it's headed IMHO):

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=423196

And, of course, there probably will be new ones :).

Scott

I don't really think this will be doable without a major (API breaking)
release from ECF (i.e. 4.0.0).   And WRT the p2/releng process
specifically...it seems like overkill to me.

I accept that it will have some advantages as you describe below
(although I don't see 1 and 3 as that problematic anymore...i.e. I think
that Easier support for non-Equinox frameworks is the driving use
case).  But again...I'm doubtful (even with a lot of work), that it can
be accomplished without API breaking changes and so don't think it can
be done for 3.8.  And truthfully, it will involve a lot of work from me
to accomplish this...without sponsorship I don't think I'm going to have
the bandwidth for it over the next few months...especially since I'm
going to be working on the feature restructuring, remote services
tutorials, docs, papers, examples...as well as OSGi standards/rfc
compliance...in addition to 'paying work' :).

I'm fully aware that this is a breaking change. The bug I linked to
targets ECF 4.0.

I don't have any objections to moving things out...or perhaps rather
moving to distinct features...since in some cases we can't really know
what's being used or not.   And for things that truly are no longer
maintained...yes, removal...but I'm not aware of that much that is
really no longer maintained (at Eclipse.org anyway).

I'd say that pretty much all the code that has UI dependencies can be
deleted from master as well as all broken providers.

M.

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

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