[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [equinox-dev] customization approaches
- From: Niclas Hedhman <niclas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:37:58 +0800
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; b=Z5Ubg7UYeYsWPqUhvm4Ay2/9k5YCsNwAUCtAmZu32B1KxYlQpj2ujGsOF3bjv/Z/svLQtVt/uW3pwDdjT7DFSXdRZnzNN1Mw9hh/QuMZC64g9kZyC9K4yJ3+mzXVzIhHkEQAQgF4lmVjOhOXT4IB8UZcHZq3yI+6QT3nBqkMDNs=
- User-agent: KMail/1.9.5
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 22:49, Jeff McAffer wrote:
> By way of more context, the idea behind the customization work is to
> reconcile difference in views between producers and consumers. Producers
> create code, markup, ... according to their view of the world. Consumers
> then take the bundles (in this case) and compose them to make a system. It
> happens frequently to us that the consumer's view is quite different than
> the producers. We can say "too bad" or we can allow consumers to
> customize the product to their needs. Curently the main culprits in this
> area are plugin.xml and manifest.mf and to a certain degree the code
> itself. The proposal here would allow people to contribute arbitrary
> transformation mechanisms (xslt, sed, scripted, ...) and others to
> contribute arbitrary transformations to be run by the transformers on
> particular kinds of product artifacts.
Personally, I don't know enough to have an opinion about how these 'noble'
concerns should be used for Eclipse/RCP...
> Can you say more about your concerns?
I think Peter is refering to at least the case of Maven1, possibly others;
Maven 1.0 used a POM, just like Maven2, but with the distinct difference that
it was not a 'static' file, it was a so called Jelly Script. That means that
I could intertwine code into the POM declarations and hence make things quite
and suddenly declarations become 'unknown' except for a particular point in
time and in a scope that will only be known when it is executed, and may
never reveal the same result twice.
Some 'clever' people used this extensively, and things became a mess for those
who tried to extract some 'info' from the POM for downstream use.
Obviously, the creators realized the problems later, and had that completely
removed in Maven2 (thank <name-your-deity>)...
In respect of the principle that you want to apply for RCP development, could
you give an example of the 'difference in views between producer and
P.S. +1 for more committers in Equinox.