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

[Danail Nachev <d.nachev@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Device Registry should listen for extension registry changes, so it can
invalidate all devices added via obsolete extensions. Another thing
which I think makes sense if the contributed devices are not persisted,
they are always added at startup from the extension points. This will
guarantee that no stale devices exists in the registry. Does this makes
sense?

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

Hildum Eric-XFQ473 wrote:
> How would we handle changes in capabilities of the SDK? Would the p2 update process trigger an action to update the persisted information? 
> 
> 
> 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 Craig Setera
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 15:57
> To: Mobile Tools for The Java Platform mailing list
> Subject: Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Extension point for defining devices - Back onTrack
> 
> My assumption would be the goal that the IDevice could be registered 
> directly without the need for going through the importer functionality.  
> I would further assume that it would still end up registered as an 
> instance of IDevice, but it would be "fully formed".  It would be 
> similar to specifying the information that is currently persisted about 
> imported devices via extension point... If I were going to tackle 
> something like this, I would make two primary changes/additions:
> 
> 1) Allow an SDK and IDevice(s) to be specified directly by extension 
> point.  It would be up to the extension to generate/persist the 
> necessary configuration information.  It would be outside the scope of 
> MTJ to do that, as each SDK/device may want to do this differently.
> 2) Add support into the current SDK/device list functionality for a 
> "reference".  The reference could then point to these fully-formed devices.
> 
> Does that make sense and describe the goals?
> Craig
> 
> Christian Kurzke wrote:
>> Gustavo, Craig, please correct me here, but I think this extension 
>> point will
>> let you register a new device importer. This device importer then can
>> return the discovered "devices" in the SDK.
>> The devices need to implement the interface:  
>> org.eclipse.mtj.core.model.device.IDevice
>>    
>> http://dsdp.eclipse.org/help/latest/topic/org.eclipse.mtj.doc.isv/html/reference/api/org/eclipse/mtj/core/model/device/IDevice.html 
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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