[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [equinox-dev] Alternate Extension Point namespace
- From: Nick Edgar <Nick_Edgar@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:58:09 -0500
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
I thought that one of the goals of eRCP was to provide a common
programming model so that plug-ins written against eRCP would run
unmodified on the full RCP.
If so (and I think this is an important goal), then we should keep not
only the same type names and package ids where appropriate, but also the
same plug-in ids, since these are essentially API (not just as part of
extension point ids).
But there should still be some way of distinguishing the eRCP subset of
org.eclipse.ui in the configuration. I'm not sure what the best approach
is here though. Using version ids doesn't seem to be the right answer.
Eclipse RCP UI lead
Mark Rogalski <rogalski@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
11/29/2005 03:38 PM
Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list
[equinox-dev] Alternate Extension Point namespace
For eRCP we would like to have a smaller org.eclipse.ui plugin that has
fewer graphics and only a subset of extension points. However, producing a
plugin with the same symbolic name but different content does not seem
like a good practice since the two plugins could potentially be confused.
The problem is that Extension Points are known by their "plugin symbolic
name" + "extension name". Thus, Extensions Points can not be provided by
another plugin and still be found.
Tom Watson mentioned that there had been some discussion of loosening this
restriction. Is there anything currently in the works that would resolve
this problem or would you entertain adding a "namespace=" tag to allow
changing the default namespace?
equinox-dev mailing list