How is that any different than
MarketPlace?
On 10/21/2013 03:10 PM, Marcel Bruch wrote:
Did someone call for CPAN? ;) Honestly,
to me this discussion is about having something like CPAN for
Eclipse plugins. I agree with Konstantin that these things don't
have to be part of the platform. I'm not sure if IP is a concern
here, but it all sounds like Orbit for external contributions to
Eclipse. Developed and maintained externally but made accessible
by cean.eclipse.org
- the "comprehensive eclipse archive network". Combined with a
customizable CBI build for your own IDE configuration or target
platforms, and you are good to go.
Nice idea, though, I'm not sure how this solves the general
issues with the IDE we currently see.
Marcel
I don’t think
we need another container project or a
monolithic “IDE” project to hold features
that don’t find place in existing
projects. These days, it is a lot easier
to create a micro-project under say Tools
or Technology than it used to be. It isn’t
a matter of a few clicks, like it should
be, but it is a lot better than what it
used to be and you meet a lot less
resistance along the way.
I am personally
of the opinion that it isn’t good to keep
growing the size of the platform. The
platform should stay small to be suitable
to a wide variety of usecases and be
mainly concerned with facilitating work
happening elsewhere. We do not need to
stuff more into the platform to improve
Eclipse IDE.
- Konstantin
Maybe this is a case where
the Eclipse IDE Project makes sense.
Then we wouldn't be having this
discussion and the Eclipse IDE would
have it's image viewer. Mind you, we
still might need changes to the Platform
to enable it, but they would be in the
right direction of making the Platform
more pluggable.
BTW, we have a lot of
functionality in the CDT that really
belongs in the Platform, In Our Humble
Opinion. We just found it easier (back
in the dark times), to just implement it
close to home. I wonder how many other
projects have done the same. I'd bet we
could build up an IDE project with a lot
of functionality day one.
But I'd like to hear from
Platform leadership team first. Does the
Platform want to open up more in this
direction? Or would they prefer we find
a different home for these common
features.
Having been
involved in the discussion and having
made several attempts to facilitate a
solution, I see the image viewer story
as most illustrative of what happens
when a contributor is unwilling to be
flexible. Various options were offered
that would have led to an image view in
Eclipse IDE packages, but it was either
in platform or nowhere, so in the end we
have no image viewer in Eclipse IDE to
date.
Projects will
reject features for various reasons. We
need to be ready to find alternate
accommodations and contributors need to
be flexible enough to work with such
accommodations. We are certainly better
prepared for this today than six years
ago. EMO is more willing than before to
accept micro-projects and improvements
in common infrastructure (such as the
common build system) make it a lot less
costly to have a project around a single
feature, if such thing is necessary.
- Konstantin
BTW, to be fair fair
about the image viewer story, the
rejection happened 6 years ago near
the end of the dark times…
I
do not make purchasing/consortium
participation decisions on behalf of
NVIDIA. I am an input to such
decisions made by my superiors.
What
I am writing to this list is my
personal opinion.
At
NVIDIA, I am working on "Nsight
Eclipse Edition" - that is an
Eclipse-based IDE for CUDA
developers. Before NVIDIA I was
working on other Eclipse-based IDEs
(paid or not).
I
find it ironic that it is possible
to get GSoC student work on adding
generics to the JFace into the main
repo, while experienced developer's
contribution of image viewer (I
mentioned the bug number in my
original letter) was rejected with
prejudice. I personally had to
implement similar viewer more then
once for different projects.
I
am looking at this WG from a point
of view "what would we get for
participation" - as this is the
question I need to answer if I raise
this topic with my manager.
Personally,
I believe there is a need for a more
open collaboration place for
adopters to work on what they see as
a better Eclipse Platform for IDEs.
Currently adopters are forced to
ship their own forks - so I wonder
if this project could become some
sort of unified fork that better
suits the needs of IDEs.
One
thing I would like to point out is
that for some teams it might be
easier to contribute developer time
than money as those decisions are
made on different levels and
development teams more readily
recognize the value of
collaboration.
Before playing this
back-and-forth:
What's your
position on the WG - or funding
developers in general that work
on, say, JDT, CDT or EMF? Are
you looking at this from an
investors view point or more
from a developer's view point.
Not sure what the role of a lead
architect at nvidia is.
In any case, from
your writing I get the
impression that you don't see
any good way to contribute to
the existing platform (no critic
in here). If that's true, what
can we do? Will all tries to
modernize the Eclipse IDE fail?
So let's imagine
some company is
really bothered by
such issues and
joins this working
group (note the
hefty price tag of
$120k/year).
The
price tags are just a
proposal and haven't
been validated
currently. But I think
you are referring to
the highest one which
includes steering
committee membership.
My
understanding is that
non-steering
participation does not
give any voting
rights.
1. Are there any
guarantees somebody
would actually
implement these
enhancements? What
may prevent these
funds from being
spent on EMF
enhancements if they
get more votes?
I think it will be
important to make
that the working
group operates open
and transparent.
Therefore, the whole
funding and wishlist
including voting
will be visible.
That allows to make
a clear judgment on
what impact specific
funding will make.
This
means that either
companies invested in
CDT or EMF will not
get what they joined
for.
2. What would be a
timeframe before
implementation
starts? Would there
be a committed
delivery schedule?
I expect this to
happen as part of
the work
item analysis and
upon assignment of
such items to the
implementation
partner.
How
will this happen? A
lot of time will be
spent defining the
"wish list", then RFPs
will be sent out,
prospecting
"implementation
partners" will submit
proposals, voting on
proposals will
commence, so on?
Sounds like years will
pass without any
output.
3. How could such
a general-purpose
text editor avoid
sharing the fate of Bug 155323?
It's an important
role of the working
group steering
committee to find
solutions to such
problems. I could
imagine that if no
project is willing
to accept a feature
such as a general
purpose image viewer
or text file editor,
the work is brought
in as a new project
and made available
as part of the
release train and in
the downloadable
packages.
I
do not think these two
items can happen without
at least some platform
changes (I am only
familiar with E3 - and
at least hooks will have
to be put there).
This
email message is for the
sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may
contain confidential
information. Any
unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or
distribution is
prohibited. If you are
not the intended
recipient, please
contact the sender by
reply email and destroy
all copies of the
original message.
_______________________________________________
ide-dev mailing list
ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ide-dev
_______________________________________________
ide-dev mailing list
ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ide-dev
|