[dsdp-tm-dev] SubSystemConfiguration vs. SubSystemFactory ??

["Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Dave's and Kushal,

While I was working on RSE today, I was wondering why you had
chosen to rename SubSystemFactory --> SubSystemConfiguration.

After all, it *is* the factory which creates new subsystems,
isn't it? Sure enough, it also holds configuration data about
the subsystems, but in terms of lifecycle, the interesting 
point is that the factory exists before the subsystem -- and
the configuration data will apply to *all* new subsystems
created.

In other words, it is never possible to have different configurations
for subsystems of the same type, because all of them are created
by the same factory, right?

Moreover, there are still lots of Javadoc comments and local
variable names etc. that refer to factories.

Looking at existing Platform extension points, I'm finding:
  org.eclipse.ui.console.consoleFactories
  org.eclipse.ui.elementFactories
  org.eclipse.ui.presentationFactories
The semantics especially of the last one is a bit similar to 
our subsystem configurations I think. I found only one named
  org.eclipse.ui.acceleratorConfigurations
which is deprecated.

Well it's my personal feeling, but I'm more comfortable with
a SubSystemFactory than with a SubSystemConfiguration. What
would you think about renaming it back ??? I don't think it
would be much work to do, a simple plaintext-search-and-Replace
of SubSystemConfiguration (case sensitive!) should do since
the word is long enough to avoid unintended matches. Replacing
in html, xml etc. as well would also fix ISV docs along the 
way. I could make the change easily if you agree.

Comments?

Thanks,
--
Martin Oberhuber
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm