Summary: | Plugin dependence problem | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Eclipse Project] JDT | Reporter: | Luc Bourlier <eclipse> |
Component: | Core | Assignee: | Philipe Mulet <philippe_mulet> |
Status: | VERIFIED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | P3 | ||
Version: | 2.0 | ||
Target Milestone: | 2.1 M2 | ||
Hardware: | PC | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: |
Description
Luc Bourlier
2002-09-06 10:49:31 EDT
We only contribute recommendations for filetypes. So if VCM was present, then it would get these recommendations automatically, but we don't technically need VCM. However, the log entry is a little disturbing I admit. The way we do it works in the SDK case but has problems if the workspace is created with PDE based on the pre-reqs. Since there is no pre-req we will fail. To avoid a hard dependency from JDT core on team and to still enable that PDE works we can declare team.core as an optional required plugin, e.g., <requires> <import plugin="xxx" optional=true/> Wouldn't this result in us loading VCM on startup then ? If so, I am reluctant to cause some more activation... This wouldn't result in loading of the org.eclipse.team.core plugin on start- up. The contributions we make go into the plugin registry only, this is the same behaviour as today The price we pay is an additional pre-req on the plugins build path. Without some measurement of the effect on the start-up time it is not possible to estimate the cost. If the change has any performance cost then we should not make it. However, the log entry messages are scary during development and if there are no cost adding the pre-req as an optional plugin is benficial. Agreed, but I guess that VCM would then be added on the buildpath of jdt/core, even though we strictly want to have no code dependency on it... Scary for jdt/core developpers. Deferring to M3 Reconsidering for M2. Adding optional plug-in dependency. Fixed Verified. |