[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [equinox-dev] managing "extra" classes


+1

I think this is a fine direction to explore.  Would we still what to define some .ee files for the foundation and osgi-min EEs?

Tom




Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

04/20/2007 08:51 PM

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

To
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [equinox-dev] managing "extra" classes






Hmmm, would it make sense to basically manage the "extras" only?  That is, say in bundle Foo we use Foundation 1.0 or J2SE-1.3 for the most part.  We would set the B-REE accordingly.  Assume that we want to be able to use java.nio.FileChannel (whatever from 1.4).  We could create a shell JAR that contains just that class (and transitively required classes).  This JAR would go in the Foo project and be placed on the buid path using something like the build.properties extra.jars (whatever it is) property.  


These extra JARs would in general be specific to particular bundles though it seems likely that there might be some common sets classes that are frequently used in such scenarios.  It is not clear that manage this duplication would be worth it.  For exmaple, it may be better to just let the project developers expliciitly spec what they need in one JAR and not worry about duplication.


Jeff



Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

04/16/2007 09:34 AM

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

To
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [equinox-dev] managing "extra" classes








The problem with the first approach is that it we duplicate the shell jars across many different projects and have to maintain them separately.  We could define a common project that contains several .ee profile definitions for development time.  The .ee profiles would configure the shell jars for compilation.  Then developers only need to checkout the common .ee project and install each .ee profile that is needed.  The project could contain many of the common J2ME .ee profiles (CDC-1.0/Foundation-1.0, CDC-1.1/Foundation/1.1, OSGi/Minimum etc).  We could also define some of the hybrid .ee file like the one that org.eclipse.osgi is currently compiling against at development time, something like OSGi/Minimum+extensions.


We would still need specify to PDE which EE we want to compile against.  For example, org.eclipse.osgi will need to define the hybrid ee to compile against.  This makes some sense because we are explicit in the compilation needs.  But I think this idea has a major flaw because nww we will be in the business of defining EEs.  In the end they are not real EEs, only EEs we need to compile against, but I think many will confuse them with EEs that they can execute against.


Tom


Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

04/14/2007 06:54 AM

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


To
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
[equinox-dev] managing "extra" classes










In a few (and seemingly growing number of) places we have bundles that need to compile against say J2SE 1.4 but in practice we want them to run against Foundation.  This is cool because it allows us to run in small places but take advantage of function when it is available.  We currently have a mixed approach to this however.  For example in org.eclipse.osgi we have a set of JARs that contain shell apis for the OSGi ee.minimum 1.1 and we compile against these.  We also have a set of "exception" (extra) jars that similarly just contain class signatures for us during compilation.  In other bundles we do things like
     Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment: J2SE-1.4,CDC-1.0/Foundation-1.0,J2SE-1.3

This uses an intentional quirk of PDE that uses the first EE on the list as the compilation base for the project.  That's pretty cool and useful for getting going but it has some downsides:

- it muddies the waters by confusing the metadata

- it allows people to use any 1.4 classes/methods thus opening the doors to mistakes

So I wonder if we should apply the first technique more broadly and seek to eliminate instances of the second in our bundle set?  It seems that we just need a mechanism for easily creating/managing these shell jars and then we can have very detailed control over what we use in our bundles.


Thoughts?


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

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