Re: [iam-dev] Strong opinions against using Eclipse 3.4/Ganymede as mini

["Jake Pezaro" <jake.pezaro@xxxxxxxxx>]

when i said core i meant the stuff that actually allows you to use
maven, things like the embedder, dependency resolution, the maven
classpath container, that kind of thing.  the pom editor is nice to
have, but being without it means you can still use q4e and maven.  so
long as we can keep this core stuff running on 3.3 then we are
achieving that goal.

can the compatability be controlled using the plugin manifests
somehow?  if so we could set all the bundles to 3.3 to start with and
switch (non-core) bundles up to 3.4 and 3.5 when we need to use the
features

2008/11/27 Abel Muiño Vizcaino <amuino@xxxxxxxxx>:
> I fully agree with your view Jake. If somebody is willing to be the "3.3
> police" and make sure that we degrade gracefully, I'm all for it.
> Right now, we need 3.4 for the xml databinding in pom editor, which is also
> needed for making modifications to the pom.xml while keeping the original
> format (if I've got this right), so it is becoming quite at the core of the
> user experience. Mike can add more information in this specific case.
> If we get the list of functionality that will work on 3.3 and it is of
> value, we can document it and keep 3.4/3.5 extensions on separate plug-ins.
> My impression is that it will be limited to core, jdt and wtp (not sure, I
> think there are valuable enhancements on 3.4).
> Anybody is willing to do this research?
> --
> Abel Muiño Vizcaino - http://ramblingabout.wordpress.com
>
> El 27/11/2008, a las 21:04, Jake Pezaro escribió:
>
> the biggest problem with having a minimum version requirement that it
> close to the leading edge is that you will lose all those who cannot
> upgrade.  there are a lot of corporate users who are stuck on older
> versions of eclipse, and do not have the freedom to upgrade at will.
> if you set the minimum required version above what they can use they
> will most likely switch to m2eclipse.  once they have switched, it is
> unlikely they will switch back unless something forces them to.
> i would suggest supporting newer technology where it is available, but
> degrading gracefully where it is not.  the end result is that users on
> older platforms will still be able to access core IAM functionality.
> the example i am thinking of is eclipse's support for java 1.4, but
> with a slightly reduced feature set which was enabled once the user
> moved to 1.5
> jake
>
> 2008/11/27 Brett Porter <brett@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> I think I've echoed this before, but I'd aim for a stable release that
> everyone can use, then roll onto the release train in future years. 3.4
> users that don't want 3.5 should be happy with 1.0, 3.5 can use 1.1, etc.
> 3.4 at a minimum sounds pretty reasonable. The likely hinderances are the
> slow adopters (like RAD?). It's probably something to trade off at the point
> where compatibility is really holding back (like the examples you quoted).
> Cheers,
> Brett
> On 27/11/2008, at 10:27 PM, Abel Muiño wrote:
> Hello guys!
> I've raised this topic a couple of times now, but I'll try to make this my
> last :-)
> I would like to push the minimum requirements of IAM to 3.4 (i'm tempted to
> say 3.5).
> Why:
> We use dependencies from 3.4, backported for 3.3 (emf databinding): I would
> happily change the maintenance and IP work for new feature development.
> Some (most?) Eclipse projects target the current future release for its
> dependencies (like emf). This means that we need to integrate with older
> versions and don't get a chance to influence current development.
> For example, PDE integration would probably need us to work with PDE in
> order to define the extensions we will need. Also, P2 was not even available
> in 3.3.
> By the time we release 1.0.0, Eclipse 3.5 will be out.
> I know that supporting 3.3 is good for increasing the number of users able
> to run IAM, but our role as a technology project is to develop new
> technology. After getting out of the incubator we can think about backwards
> compatibility.
> So, what is your opinion? Do you think we can support 3.3 at this time? (if
> so, I want names! :-) ).
> --
> Abel Muiño - http://ramblingabout.wordpress.com/
> _______________________________________________
> iam-dev mailing list
> iam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iam-dev
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
> _______________________________________________
> iam-dev mailing list
> iam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iam-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> iam-dev mailing list
> iam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iam-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> iam-dev mailing list
> iam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iam-dev
>
>