[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] MTJ SR1 work

Would a set of key/value pairs suffice for your needs in these cases?  We could allow "property" sections in the project metadata file keyed by identifier.  For instance, we could do something like:

<properties id="sdk.unique.identifier">
    <property name="my.prop.name" value="my.prop.value" />
</properties>

We could then allow access to this via the metadata accessor classes we already have?

Thoughts?
Craig

Jon Dearden wrote:

I have identified a need for an SDK provider to be able to store arbitrary meta data in the .mtj file and also arbitrary data associated with a device definition. I makes sense to put these data into the locations that MTJ uses, rather than under the SDK plug-in, so that the data can be deleted when projects and device definitions are deleted.

 

 

Regards,

Jon Dearden

 


From: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Craig Setera
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:31 AM
To: Mobile Tools for The Java Platform mailing list
Subject: Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] MTJ SR1 work

 

What are we thinking in terms of additional features/functions for this point release?  I know that that isn't all that standard for most Eclipse projects, but given that we are still trying to get all of the basics in place it seems we might want to consider it.  I'm thinking, in particular, that I might like to try to find the time to go back and finish out the SDK provider extension point work I started.

If we are starting point release work, do we have appropriate source control branches in place?

Craig

On 6/11/09 1:07 PM, Eric Hildum wrote:

Everyone, we have had a very successful development and release of MTJ
1.0. Thank you all for your hard work and contributions.
 
Even though Galileo has not been officially released yet, I think it
is time we start looking at the work for SR1. Looking at the current
bug list for MTJ, I see 42 open bugs at this time. Some of these we
definitely need to resolve for SR1, others it is not clear to me that
they are still valid or at the right severity/priority. Could we all
take a look at the open bugs and:
 
1. See if they are still valid. If not, would the reporters please close them
2. Check to see if they have the correct severity/priority.
3. Make sure that we have correctly identified and recorded in
Bugzilla the correct blocking/depends on relationships
4. Update the reports with any additional information that may have come in.
 
Also, I noticed that at least one bug has a valid patch but seems to
be moving into new problems. Could we close the initial problem report
as that has been fixed, and open a separate bug report so we can keep
the bugs on a single topic?
 
  
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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