| Ok. B. and I decided to do this now iac because it will be less disruptive than waiting till downstream when everyone has source. Its probably only several hours thanks to Eclipse's refactoring capability :-)
Joel
On 7 Aug 2008, at 12:43, Richard Gronback wrote: I don’t think it needs to be done before the IP review, necessarily. But, the sooner the better I suppose when it comes to managing bundle dependencies.
Best,
Rich
On 8/7/08 7:37 AM, "Joel Rosi-Schwartz" <Joel.Rosi-Schwartz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes these are all of the plug-ins. In the early days (2002++), when Useme started, the convention was to have naming along the lines that we have below and then to have *.ui.* and *.core.* in the package names. So if you look into org.eclipse.ormf.client.editor plug-in you will find this package structure:
./org/eclipse/ormf/client
./org/eclipse/ormf/client/editor
./org/eclipse/ormf/client/editor/core
./org/eclipse/ormf/client/editor/core/common
./org/eclipse/ormf/client/editor/core/services
./org/eclipse/ormf/client/editor/core/util
./org/eclipse/ormf/client/editor/ui
./org/eclipse/ormf/client/editor/ui/actions
./org/eclipse/ormf/client/editor/ui/common
./org/eclipse/ormf/client/editor/ui/perspectives
./org/eclipse/ormf/client/editor/ui/views
...
./org/eclipse/ormf/client/editor/ui/wizards
...
It seems that you are advising that we now split "core" and "ui" into there own plug-ins. If that is the case, then this is the best time to bite off that work before I give the EMO IP team the last source drop for scan and before check everything into SVN.
Thanks,
Joel
On 7 Aug 2008, at 11:33, Richard Gronback wrote:
There’s no need to tie the branding of a plug-in to its namespace, or vice versa. Why not use useme in the UI strings, icons, etc. and just leave the plug-in name and package namespace as you have it below?
And perhaps this isn’t the complete list, but UI elements are typically split out into their own *.ui plug-ins.
Best,
Rich
On 8/7/08 3:45 AM, "Joel Rosi-Schwartz" <Joel.Rosi-Schwartz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks all. I guess naming conventions are dear to everyone's hearts :-)
I get the impression that B. might have been slightly misunderstood, so to clarify (if needed) here is the list of project (and package naming) that we have adopted and to which all of the code is now refactored:
org.eclipse.ormf.ant.nest
org.eclipse.ormf.client.base
org.eclipse.ormf.client.editor
org.eclipse.ormf.client.editor.doc.user
org.eclipse.ormf.client.editor.usecase
org.eclipse.ormf.client.editor.usecase.doc.user
org.eclipse.ormf.client.editorcontrib
org.eclipse.ormf.client.feature.common
org.eclipse.ormf.client.feature.usecase
org.eclipse.ormf.client.gmm
org.eclipse.ormf.client.gmm.doc.user
org.eclipse.ormf.client.mock
org.eclipse.ormf.server.base
org.eclipse.ormf.server.base.client.base
org.eclipse.ormf.server.base.client.mock
org.eclipse.ormf.shared
It is only the naming of usecase component that we have a doubt about. We would rather like to keep the heritage of Useme for of the use case specific exemplary tool. This will end up covering the use case and actor editors/reporting modules.
For those interested in the reasons we want to keep/include it are that we like it, we have grown attached to it, (okay, we are sentimental), it has a fair amount of exposure, we have invested into logo and name styling and we own several domain names including useme.org and useme.net.
On 6 Aug 2008, at 22:44, Richard Gronback wrote:
In case you’ve not come across it: http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Naming_Conventions#Plug-ins_and_Extension_Points
It’s likely you don’t need useme at all, as the convention is typically org.eclipse.<project-short-name> where yours is ormf, I guess. At least, that’s the path to your project at eclipse.org. This doesn’t mean you couldn’t use it, it’s just that you should at least start with org.eclipse.ormf in all your plug-in names (and therefore, package namespaces).
HTH,
Rich
On 8/6/08 4:57 PM, "Barbara Rosi-Schwartz" <Barbara.Rosi-Schwartz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Beloved Mentors,
Joel and I have been trying to come up with an appropriate plug-in naming convention for the Useme related plug-ins as opposed to the framework plug-ins, but so far we have not succeeded. I guess the most important and fundamental question is: does the framework acronym (ormf) need to appear in the name or not? We have scrounged around the ecosystem for examples but have not been able to find any suitable ones.
Here are a few permutations we have tried, all of them unsatisfactory to us for one reason or another:
org.eclipse.ormf.client.editor.usecase - the name we have now, but lacks reference to Useme (the actual tool name)
org.eclipse.ormf.useme.client.editor.usecase - clumsy and not easy for future tools to follow
org.eclipse.ormf.client.editor.useme.usecase - indicates that all tools fall into the editor namespace which is not necessarily true (there could be reporting tools, for instance)
org.eclipse.useme.client.editor.usecase - looses the fact that it is built on ORMF
Any suggestions or guidelines? (Please refrain from the obvious suggestion: "Get a life!"... ;-)
Thank you muchly, as always.
B.
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Thank you.
<image.png>http://www.etish.org <image.png>http://www.eclipse.org/ormf
<image.png> http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=19433011
<image.png>
_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
|
