[buckminster-dev] Re: Headless (JUnit) launching

[Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Achim,
Congratulations to the approval of all your hard work with the separation. I've been following the 
dialog on Bugzilla and I know that this has been a significant effort.

Achim Demelt wrote:
> It seems that with Helios M2 we'll have all prerequisites for headless JUnit 
> launching available. I'll be ready to check in the Buckminster JUnit command 
> shortly after.
>
> I have two questions, though:
>
> 1) If we build Galileo SR1 from trunk, I'd better not include the new bundle 
> in the o.e.buckminster.pde.headless feature, right? Otherwise I'll break the 
> build because of the 3.6 dependencies.

We usually branch on demand. The demand arises when 3.6 diverges in such a way that API changes or 
dependencies to 3.6 functionality are introduced. This is a good example of that. The 
o.e.buckminster.pde.headless feature must be branched off to the Platform-3.5.x branch. So feel free 
to create that branch.

Incidentally, we already have a CQUERY that will look into the Platform-3.5.x branch first and give 
any components found there higher priority during resolution. That's the query to use when we do 
continued work for the Galileo SR1 release.

The buckminster-dev.cquery and dogfood.rmap should change slightly also. As a quick fix I suggest 
that you make buckminster-dev.cquery point to another rmap where you change the eclipse repos to the 
ones where the milestones are staged.

Going forward, we need to provide a property that controls what Eclipse repository to use as input 
for the target platform so that all work can share the same rmap. I'm doing some heavy experimenting 
setting up the TP + Workspace in one go using a MSPEC import, it looks really promising and I expect 
that the rmap refinement will come as a result of that work.

> 2) With a little extra effort --- and I mean _really_ little extra effort, < 
> 4hrs --- I could provide not only JUnit launching, but _any_ kind of 
> launching from the headless workspace. Plain Java and OSGi launching will 
> come out-of-the-box. Launching any other kind of launch config will only 
> require that the respective LaunchConfigurationDelegates are installed in 
> the Buckminster headless host. What do think about that?
Sounds awesome. I'm all for it.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren