Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Extension point for defining devices

[Danail Nachev <d.nachev@xxxxxxxxxx>]

My idea was to remove (in case you are already providing some kind of
extension for Eclipse) the need for the developer to go and import the
SDK. It will be already available once it has installed the tooling.

I was just mentioning that this way, p2 can used for SDK distribution if
the vendor decide that it is appropriate. This however, will not impose
any limitation to the SDK - it can be still UEI compatible and be
distributed as well as standalone zip.

My idea is similar to:
* Installed JRE preference page, where plugins can provide JREs
* Plug-in Development -> Target Platform page, where we have the notion
of predefined targets
Both of the pages and associated extension points doesn't expose any
restrictions on the distribution or the structure of the SDK, but does
provide a way for a plugin to contribute (w/o user intervention) to the
available entries.

Are we on the same page?

BR,
Danail Nachev
Senior Software Engineer/Development Tools
ProSyst Labs EOOD
-------------------------------------------------
stay in touch with your product.
-------------------------------------------------

Hildum Eric-XFQ473 wrote:
> A critical point to consider is that SDK developers do not have only Eclipse + MTJ as a target. Any plugin/P2 based solution will inherently be Eclipse only, thus will face adoption issues. 
> 
> SDKs currently use the UEI specification as that is the only one out there that is supported by all major IDEs. 
> 
> Any proposed solution needs to be IDE agnostic as well as SDK agnostic.
> 
> 
> Eric Hildum
> Senior Product Manager, Mobile Developer Tools & SDK
> Software Platforms and Delivery
> Ecosystem and Market Development
> Motorola
> Direct: +1-408-541-6809
> Mobile: +1-510-305-0801
>  
> 809 11th Avenue
> Sunnyvale, CA 94089
> USA
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gorkem Ercan
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 0:41
> To: Mobile Tools for The Java Platform mailing list
> Subject: Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Extension point for defining devices
> 
> Craig,
> I totally understand, I hope that people, who wants to see that
> feature sooner,  will be kind enough to offer help on the
> implementation :)
> 
> In any case, it may be a good idea to have an enhancement request open
> for this (if there is not already one)
> --
> Gorkem
> 
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Craig Setera <craigjunk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Gorkem,
>>
>> I agree that the end goals are compatible and these should all be considered
>> together.  We have a pretty serious open issue in terms of our current
>> API's.  My assumption is that we will need to "finalize" the current
>> importer API for a 1.0 release and then look seriously at some of these
>> other options as future additions.  I think we probably need to be looking
>> seriously at controlling what else we sign up for relative to the 3.5
>> release, especially in terms of API's.  In the future, we need to spend
>> significantly more time working with the community as a whole to propose and
>> iteratively develop new API's.
>>
>> For those that are not already aware... The API's that currently exist in
>> MTJ were originally created by me in EclipseME to service my own needs with
>> no external input.  I won't claim that they are well suited for all
>> situations.  This was one of the discussion points when it was decided to
>> restart MTJ with the EclipseME code base.  I was convinced by others at the
>> time that what was there worked "well enough" as a starting point and that
>> we would work hard to improve the API/platform part of the code over time.
>> I guess only time will tell! <grin>
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> Gorkem Ercan wrote:
>>
>> Please take a look at the MADK proposal[1] that was proposed in the
>> Eclipse Mobile Industry Working Group [2]. I think the idea is the
>> same on both proposals.
>>
>> Also there is an interesting discussion going on related to
>> downloading packages that are not EPL compatible [3], even when
>> downloading/installing through p2 there may be legal requirements.
>>
>> I think this is a good feature that may lower the barriers for
>> starters and apparently this is a desired feature since it has been
>> voiced through several sources.
>>
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/EMIWG/MADKQuickStartProposal
>> [2] http://wiki.eclipse.org/EMIWG
>> [3] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=246945#c9
>>
>> --
>> Gorkem
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Adam Abramski <aabramski@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> As Paula has explained, this is definitely one of RIM's concerns.
>> Having more flexibility without imposing too much on the plug in
>> implementers is a better approach in my opinion as well.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paula Gustavo-WGP010
>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:30 AM
>> To: Mobile Tools for The Java Platform mailing list
>> Subject: RES: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Extension point for defining devices
>>
>> Hi danail,
>>
>> Thanks for your interested on mtj!
>>
>> Let me see if i understand your correctly your suggestion.
>> 1- mtj will have a declarative way to describe an sdk / devices
>> 2- this declarative way would be published via an extension point
>> 3- each sdk provider (like nokia, mot or rim) would have a plugin that
>> implements the EP and describe its sdk. The whole sdk also need to be
>> provided as a set of plugins / binaries
>> 4- the user would just use p2 to find / install / update sdks on his
>> eclipse
>> 5- mtj would automatically find the installed sdks via the EP
>>
>> If that's what you mean, I think that it is great idea. But probably
>>
>>
>> it
>>
>>
>> is hard to make it happen. The main issue that I see is that this
>>
>>
>> would
>>
>>
>> require all sdk providers to change their sdk distribution mechanism.
>>
>>
>> So
>>
>>
>> instead of RIM providing a windows installer they would need to
>>
>>
>> provide
>>
>>
>> a p2 repository. This is a high impact on all providers and I don't
>>
>>
>> know
>>
>>
>> if they want to do that. if they don't them mtj would not be able to
>> support that specific sdk. What I like in the current device importer
>> solution, which was inherited completely from eclipseme, is that it is
>> really flexible. Mtj can support any sdk once the importer / editor
>>
>>
>> are
>>
>>
>> implemented. So we don't' force anything on the sdk side. There are
>> still some improvements that we can do on this area.
>>
>> Maybe we can talk about proposing that, but we would still need to
>> support the current solution to be compatible with the sdks that are
>> already available.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> :)
>> gep
>>
>>
>> -----Mensagem original-----
>> De: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Em nome de Danail Nachev
>> Enviada em: quarta-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2009 13:07
>> Para: dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Assunto: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Extension point for defining devices
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> First, I want to say that the work you are doing with MTJ has been
>>
>>
>> long
>>
>>
>> awaited and MTJ will nicely complement the existing Eclipse tools
>> covering large portion of the software development.
>>
>> So, straight to the point:
>>
>> I couldn't find a way for a plugin to define new devices. There is a
>>
>>
>> way
>>
>>
>> to define importer, which can be used to detect new types of SDKs and
>> there is an API, which can be called to add new devices to the
>>
>>
>> registry,
>>
>>
>> but there is no way for a plugin to state:
>>
>> I'm a SDK for this and this device.
>>
>> If a plugin can declaratively specify new devices:
>>
>> * p2 can be used for Java ME SDK installation/update
>> * a vendor-specific IDE/extension can easily define the supported
>> devices (w/o complex code)
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> BR,
>> --
>> Danail Nachev
>> Senior Software Engineer/Development Tools
>> ProSyst Labs EOOD
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> stay in touch with your product.
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
>> dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
>> dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>> information, privileged material (including material protected by the
>> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public
>> information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended
>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
>> please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your
>> system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
>> transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
>> _______________________________________________
>> dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
>> dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
>> dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
>> dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
> dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
> dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
> 
>