Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [gmf-dev] GMF build questions...


Hi Rich,

Comments:

1. Migrating from Eclipse 3.1 to 3.2 in mid-October would be perfect.
2. Releasing GMF 1.0 on Eclipse 3.2 is still OK. That's what we agreed to in Prague.
3. a) Please note that some of our unit tests depend on the Eclipse UML2 (richer meta-model for testing).
    b) We will definitely run J-Units on other platforms through some IBM infrastructure. How this could be integrated in our build process needs to be seen. Let us do some investigation here.
4. a) Please confirm the sdk feature will also include the tool side user guides in addition to the runtime SDK plug-ins.
     b) Because the runtime has some platform specific plug-ins, we will need runtime.<platform> and sdk.<platform> features (e.g. runtime.win32 and sdk.win32)
     c) I suggest leaving Batik in the runtime feature for now. We separated the dependencies at the plug-in level in case we get requested a batik-less deployment, but that is not the case at this point. Can always fix later as needed.
     d) I agree that isolating the ide specific dependencies in a separate feature is needed for the runtime features.
     e) I don't think we need a toolkit feature, having all in the SDK as Rich suggested is the way to go. It actually fits very well with how other projects are partitioned

    Thanks

       - Fred

_________________________________
Frédéric Plante
Rational Software, IBM Software Group
770 Palladium Drive, Ottawa, ON, Canada
tel: (613) 591-7034




"Richard Gronback" <Richard.Gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

09/08/2005 03:48 PM

Please respond to
"GMF Project developer discussions."

To
"GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
RE: [gmf-dev] GMF build questions...





Hi Steve,

1. It is operational now, for the most part.  I am traveling back home today, so should have it cleaned up and exposed tomorrow or over the weekend.  I'd like to start synchronizing with the platform release schedule as soon as we can.  As we have "opted-in" to the main release for next June, we will need to be synchronized no later than the Nov. 4th M3 timeframe.

2. Our goal for release 1.0 is to align with 3.2, so it's the minimum requirement we have.  Perhaps we should have a quick conference call next week to synch up on this and the overall plan?  

3. The build also executes the junit tests.  This is one of the issues I mentioned above that will be easier to troubleshoot when I get the CruiseControl reporting site exposed.  This should be done tomorrow.  Regarding the other platforms, I have a Win2K and Linux box available in addition to the WinXP machine we are using for  the CruiseControl builds.  Anyone want to contribute other platforms?

4. Batik seems to be the only 3rd party dependency GMF has, as Antlr looks to be an EMFT dependency.  I have considered packaging it as a dependent feature, but I'm not sure I see the issue with bundling it as a GMF plug-in.  Are there similar concerns about Ant, JUnit, etc.?  Either way, it shouldn't be a problem to configure options as you list below.  Right now, I have configured the following builds:

- runtime (just those binaries needed to run a GMF-produced application)
- sdk (all graphical definition, generation, and runtime plug-ins, with generated source feature/plug-in)
- tests (all unit tests, for execution with dependent sdk build)
- examples (all examples, with generated source feature/plug-in)

I'm open to more, but assume this is a good starting point.  Again, as soon as I get our development update site and cruise control reporting site exposed, we can have a better discussion about these points.  Sorry for the delay.

Best Regards,
Rich




-----Original Message-----
From: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Steven Shaw
Sent: Thu 9/8/2005 8:55 AM
To: gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gmf-dev] GMF build questions...

Hi Rich,

I have some questions about the GMF build that is being instrumented.

1. Is the goal to have this operational for the M2 Eclipse 3.2 milestone?
Sept 23 (?)

2. Is the target going to be against Eclipse 3.2 stream?  If so, should
the jar be still binary compatible with 3.1.x ?

3. Are we planning to automate the JUnit runs with the build?  If so, will
it be run against multiple platform targets?  Looking at the GEF site, it
looks like they run tests against linux_gtk and win2k.  I'm not sure if
these are automated are not (I can find out).

4. Deployment issues: It looks like the initial goal is to create a single
jar for clients to consume.  However, I'm assuming the Batik and Antrl
plug-ins would remain separate jars?  I think this is important because
some clients may not wish to include additional open source jars in their
product for legal reasons.  Additionally we should consider alternate
deployment scenarios that may be desirable.

Here's some possibilities:
- Batik extension of Runtime (gmf_runtime_batik.jar + batik.jar)   To
isolate the batik open source dependency
- RCP version of Runtime (gmf_runtime_rcp.jar)  For clients wishing to
create RCP applications
- IDE version of Runtime          (gmf_runtime_ide.jar) Separating out the
IDE dependency
- Runtime (gmf_runtime_rcp.jar + gmf_runtime_ide.jar +
gmf_runtime_batik.jar)
- DSL toolkit (gmf_dsl.jar + Runtime)

Thoughts?

-Steve
________________________________________
Steven R. Shaw
Rational Modeling Platform Diagram Layer Lead
Rational Software | IBM Software Group
770 Palladium Drive, Kanata, ON, Canada, K2V 1C8
tel: 613.591.7979
steveshaw@xxxxxxxxxx

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

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

Attachment: winmail.dat
Description: Binary data


Back to the top