RE: [cdt-dev] Vote for new CDT features

[Douglas Schaefer <dschaefe@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I like that idea. To help promote the CDT base as a platform and to avoid 
overload of the term core, I would call it 
org.eclipse.cdt.platform-feature.

Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
IBM Rational Software, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada



Sebastien Marineau <sebastien@xxxxxxx> 
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
09/23/2003 10:46 AM
Please respond to
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx


To
"'cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
RE: [cdt-dev] Vote for new CDT features






I'm partial to option 1 as well -- definitely the easiest for
users. If companies want to bundle a subset of CDT, then they
can "split it apart" and only take the base pieces they wish.

As for the name, that's a good question. org.eclipse.cdt.product
could be misleading; I'm thinking we should almost
use the org.eclipse.cdt-feature plugin (existing one) as the 
super-feature, and create one that is the core feature 
(e.g. org.eclipse.cdt.core-feature) that maps to what 
the cdt-feature does today.

Thoughts?

Seb

> 
> Any more comments on this proposal (Sebastien?).  It looks 
> like the most 
> popular option is to create a new set of features that 
> contain a superset 
> of the CDT features.  I'm not sure what to call it, 
> org.eclipse.cdt.product, org.eclipse.cdt.all, ...
> 
> Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
> IBM Rational Software, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
> 
> 
> 
> Douglas Schaefer/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA 
> Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 09/18/2003 03:11 PM
> Please respond to
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> To
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> cc
> 
> Subject
> Re: [cdt-dev] Vote for new CDT features
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can buy that. I guess what I'm looking for is the version 
> of the CDT 
> that people looking to eclipse.org will download for free for 
> their daily 
> use, or the one that matches the Borland C++BuilderX feature 
> set, or the 
> one some guy writes about for the C/C++ User's Journal. For 
> these people, 
> a clean update site with a simple install is a must.
> 
> My focus is wide spread adoption of the CDT, yet I can understand the 
> various partners focus on their specific customers, and given the 
> architecture of the CDT, I think we can keep everyone happy 
> :-). I don't 
> like the idea of the CVS project explosion, but then that's 
> one time pain 
> for user's gain.  I'll change my vote to +1, +1, -1, which 
> given Dave's 
> recent vote makes option 1 the leader at the moment.
> 
> Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
> IBM Rational Software, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
> 
> 
> 
> "Alain Magloire" <alain@xxxxxxx> 
> Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 09/18/2003 02:45 PM
> Please respond to
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> To
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> cc
> 
> Subject
> Re: [cdt-dev] Vote for new CDT features
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Hey all, now that we've extracted the builders out of the CDT 
> "platform", 
> > the CDT platform features become pretty useless on their 
> own.  To help 
> the 
> > user who is simply downloading the CDT from the update 
> site, I see two 
> > alternatives to make their life easier (and one not):
> > 
> > 1) Create new CDT "product" features that include the CDT 
> platform and 
> the 
> > two make builders. This would be one new feature/plugin 
> combination for 
> > each os.ws we currently have.
> > 2) Include dependencies from the current platform features 
> to the two 
> make 
> > builders and have those who want to remove the builders from their 
> > products to hand edit the feature.xml files off stream.
> > 3) Too bad, they'll just have to get used to downloading all the 
> features 
> > the want individually and we'll deal with the user mistakes in the 
> > newgroups/bugzilla.
> > 
> > I'd like to see a vote by the various committers on this as 
> to which 
> > alternative they prefer.
> > 
> > I am +1 on option 2, -1 on option 3, and a zero (in more 
> ways than one) 
> on 
> > option 1.
> > 
> 
> I like:
> (1) +1
> (2) -1
> (3) 0
> 
> 
> The rational:
> - CDT is also a framework that in itself does not do much except to 
> provide
>   a "rendez-vous" point for all the modules to work in cooperation.
>   It provides basic/common C/C++ environment i.e. CEditor, 
> C-Parser, views 
> 
> etc ...
> 
> - The full potential can be reach when "enhance" with the appropriate 
> plugins.
> 
> - CDT should come with a complete implementation of those 
> frameworks, GDB 
> for the
>   debugger and managed make for the builder etc ..
> 
> I can see the complete CDT product i.e. with gdb/mi, managed 
> make, GNU 
> make
> etc ... as a brand(default) product.
> 
> And let other compagnies, TimeSys, Tensillica, QnX have there 
> own product 
> base on
> the core.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> 
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev