Community
Participate
Working Groups
We think that it is good idea to separate model implementation to new plugin because we can't required from our remote monitoring tool user to add additional view (plugin registry view) to his or her RCP application. Our proposition is to create new plugin org.eclipse.pde.runtime.core contains model implementation.
Created attachment 141762 [details] removes model from org.eclipse.pde.runtime This patch removes model package from org.eclipse.pde.runtime (from incubator) and adds org.eclipse.pde.runtime.core to required plugins.
Created attachment 141763 [details] model plugin This plugin contains model from org.eclipse.pde.runtime.
Chris, Curtis - how should we go about that? Basically, to monitor Eclipse/Equinox apps we need some plug-in that will be installed on the monitored instance. It should not contain Plug-in Registry view, because this is something, that could be harmful for potential adopter (e.g. RCP application with sleak interface and novice users). But parts of org.eclipse.pde.runtime are necessary, because they contain universal OSGi data fetching logic and a simple data model. The ideal solution for me would be to move Plug-in Registry view to org.eclipse.pde.ui view (and some day to org.eclipse.pde.ui.views) and make it depend on org.eclipse.pde.runtime. Next pde.runtime should have no dependencies on UI, e.g. for people who run non-UI Equinox applications. User willing to monitor his Eclipse/Equinox app, would install pde.runtime AND specific connector plug-in, e.g. pde.runtime.rosgi.rs PDE Spy would also have to find it's own plug-in (org.eclipse.pde.runtime.spy?). I think would be good for it's adoption. Eventually we could take a different course of action - copy the part of org.eclipse.pde.runtime to every connector plug-in (e.g. pde.runtime.rosgi.rs, pde.runtime.jmx, etc.). This is idealogically bad because we duplicate code and make it difficult to develop more connectors (who cares?). What you think?
Wojciech, model plugin needs a bit more care. RegistryModelFactory should stay in pde.runtime where it's extension point (o.e.p.runtime.backends) is. I'm not sure about RegistryModel - it's used only by the view, but let's keep it in runtime.core for a while. PDERuntimePlugin should be renamed to PDERuntimeCorePlugin, the "ID" field inside updated and unused methods removed. We don't need dependency on org.eclipse.ui as well (in MANIFEST.MF). I also copied all .settings to the new plug-in. I have put runtime.core with all above modifications to incubator so you can play with it.:-)
fyi, I also updated pde.runtime in incubator to work with pde.runtime.core - removed classes and moved RegistryModelFactory.
Created attachment 141878 [details] small update It removes two problems: - removes org.eclipse.pde.internal.runtime.model package from Export-Package - adds org.eclipse.pde.runtime.core to Required Plugins
(In reply to comment #6) > It removes two problems: > - removes org.eclipse.pde.internal.runtime.model package from Export-Package > - adds org.eclipse.pde.runtime.core to Required Plugins Done.
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.
