[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [equinox-dev] Incubator commit rights for Kim Horne


We can likely learn from the aspect world here.  They seem to have a number of different points in time that they weave the code.  To me the plugin.xml/manifest.mf/... transformations are directly analogous to aspect weaving so it seems natural that these transformations too might be applied at different times.  The hard part in all of this is figuring out how to do the transformations etc.  Given a robust and extensible mechanism for applying transforms it seems straightforward to apply them as/when desired.

Jeff



Kimberly Horne <kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

10/27/2006 01:05 PM

Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [equinox-dev] Incubator commit rights for Kim Horne





I am now doubting myself.  I really like the feel of this solution.  
Augmenting the builder to process bundle resources seems so much more  
elegant than inserting transformation points at N levels of the  
runtime.  Other than the loss of transformations based on runtime  
state (a dubious asset at best) the main drawback I can see is how it  
would affect the shell sharing scenario.  If multiple logical  
products use the same bundles it'd be impossible to have product-
level customizations.

On Oct 25, 2006, at 4:28 PM, BJ Hargrave wrote:

>
> Also, does the transformation need to be done at runtime? It seems  
> the use
> cases are all packaging issues in assembling an RCP based product.  
> Why not
> just have support for transformation at packaging time instead of  
> runtime.
> This will then remove the runtime variability which can cause
> stability/debugging issues.

_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev