RE: [platform-core-dev] Bundle of questions

[Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Some replies...

1.  We considered different names
for the files but in the end "eclipse" is what we are and this
choice is not without precedence (note the "eclipse" install
dir which is actually spec'd as API).  

2. All of the <plugin> attributes
or their equivalents are now in the manifest.mf file.

3. We were pretty much split on the
location of the files.  There are good arguments for and against both
positions.  In the end we figured that despite a new name, developers
are used to having their info in the root of the plugin.  The META-INF
location is mandated so there's nothing we can do about that but the theory
is that once you have set that up it seldom changes so most of the time
people are looking at/for extension/extension piont information.  Like
I said, this one was a toss up.

4. Correct.  There may be some
new content in the build.properties and the porting guide spec's some changes
to people's build.xmls to accomodate new jars but we are not proposing
any changes otherwise.

Jeff

"Ed Burnette" <Ed.Burnette@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: platform-core-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

12/04/2003 08:48 AM

Please respond to
platform-core-dev

To	<platform-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [platform-core-dev] Bundle of questions

Thanks Jeff. This makes more sense
now but I have a suggestion and a couple of questions.
 
1. Instead of calling the extension
file eclipse.xml and the element eclipse, I think you should consider a
more generic term. Two reasons: first, there's the talk about maybe renaming
the Eclipse project to something else if Sun joins, and second, RCP applications
might not want the word "eclipse" plastered around on their files
for branding reasons.
 
2. In the new scheme where would
the plugin name, id, version, provider name, and class be stored? Also
extension and extension-point id's are currently constructed by concatenating
the plugin id and the extension id, would that change?
 
3. Is there any reason that you're
not collecting the new manifests and .properties files all together in
the META-INF directory? It seems a little odd that a NL reference in MANIFEST.MF
would refer back up to a properties file in the parent directory.
 
4. It sounds like about.html,
and build time files build.properties and build.xml are unaffected, is
that correct?
 
Thanks,
--Ed