RE: [dsdp-tm-dev] RSE as a Hardware Configurator

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

Hello Serge,

this sounds interesting!

> We've been interested in the Remove System Explorer for some time and 
                                  ^^^ Freud'ian mis-typing? :-)

> We're not yet doing communication with the target through RSE, we're 
> only using it as a central repository for target settings.

This makes sense, and is one of the reasons why we, too, use RSE.
For future efforts in that direction, are you aware of
http://wiki.eclipse.org/E4/Connection_Frameworks ?

> The first thing we did is a "HostCombo" widget that is a bit more 

Hmm, at the very first sight, I'm not sure if your enhancements
are generic enough to make it into the core RSE framework. Did
you have to patch core RSE code in order to make these enhancements,
or have you been able to put these into separate plugins?

Taking the HostCombo: what is the semantics of a selection? A host
or a subsystem? What's the meaning of selecting either the one or
the other? I'd like to have more context of how you're using this.

> The second feature is what we call "ApplyToProject" (see the 

Apparently this can be applied only to Launch Configs that have 
a reference to an RSE connection. So some generic markup for
such launches is needed, in other words: an (abstract?)
base class for Launch Configurations... which might actually
be a good idea.

> The third feature we've added is an Automatic RSE host project cache 

By "project referring to a host", do you mean "Launch Configuration
associated with the project referring to a host" ? I'm wondering
how you're moving your hidden project around. That seems to be
just another way of persisting connection data... basically, a
"lazy persistence provider" which remains idle and unpersists its
information only when needed.
This seems a good generic idea, but I wouldn't want to tie the
mechanism of persistence to "hidden project" only, we're actually
moving away from that, I'd be more in favor of adding the concept
of "laziness" to the generic persistence provider extension point.

Then others, who are persisting their hosts by other means, can 
also do that (an you could keep the "hidden project" in your own
persistence provider extension).

Anyways, I'd love to investigate your proposals in more detail.
Would you mind creating a separate bugzilla enhancement request
for each, such that discussions are logged?

Thanks,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm