Thanks for the reply.
Some minor additions/complications… the
runtime will also require EMFT Validation, and the SDK will require EMFT OCL
and Query. So, it’s probably easiest to just have the Runtime require EMFT
Validation, OCL, and Query. We include/ship them all with our Runtime builds today,
but as EMFT has started producing builds of their own, we should start using
their downloads.
This raises the question of what happens
for Callisto, as EMFT is not “on the train”. I’m not sure of
their release plan, but we’ll need a stable build to target for our 1.0
release. This includes update manager installation, but I’m not sure if
EMFT is available via an update site yet.
For now, I’ll continue to pull EMFT
from their repo and include it in our builds; that is, until we can get some
resolution on the questions above. As for the changes below, I can try and
reconfigure our downloads this weekend or early next week.
Thanks again,
Rich
From: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Frederic Plante
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006
8:12 AM
To: GMF
Project developer discussions.
Cc: GMF
Project developer discussions.; gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gmf-dev] GMF
downloads
Hi Rich,
These
proposed configurations are reasonable.
Thanks
- Fred
_________________________________
Frédéric Plante
Rational Software, IBM Software Group
|
"Richard Gronback"
<Richard.Gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent
by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
01/18/2006 05:05 PM
|
Please
respond to
"GMF Project developer discussions."
|
|
|
To
|
"GMF Project
developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [gmf-dev] GMF downloads
|
|
Hi Anthony,
I have often considered adding the documentation to the SDK
build. I am less inclined to include the examples due to our external
dependency on EMF’s examples, which would therefore force someone
installing our SDK to install EMF examples. Ideally, we’d eliminate
this dependency along with our UML2 dependency for testing, as proposed here (but which proposes replacing UML2 with the EMF library example).
Another consideration is size. The current SDK and Doc
downloads are about equal, so bundling together would mean a 23MB+ download.
I haven’t heard anyone in the community complain yet, but then
I’ve only heard one suggestion from the community regarding our
downloads, and that was for an all-in-one bundle a la WTP.
So, how about these download configurations:
1.
Runtime (requires EMF +
GEF + WST properties)
2.
SDK (Runtime + Tooling +
Documentation)
3.
Examples (requires SDK +
EMF Examples)
4.
Tests (requires Examples
+ UML2 + EMFT)
Sound reasonable? Would we need a standalone Documentation
download? Another suggestion is the Runtime + ECore modeling example.
Lots of options. Perhaps the newsgroup is a better place for the
discussion?
And then, what about the update site? I wonder how many
use it vs. downloading zip files? Personally, I find it more convenient
for getting everything I want in one shot, and it will better when the Callisto
site is up.
Thanks,
Rich
From:
gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anthony Hunter
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:33 PM
To: GMF Project developer discussions.
Subject: [gmf-dev] GMF downloads
Hi Team,
The GMF SDK includes runtime and source. It does not include the example
plug-ins and more importantly our documentation.
Should the SDK not include everything?
When I download the EMF SDK or GEF SDK, I get everything including examples and
documentation (although I will admit the GEF zip file is named ALL).
Any comments?
Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Manager - Software Developer,
IBM Rational Software: Aurora Core Common / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-591-7037_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
