RE: [dsdp-tm-dev] Re: [platform-team-dev] RE: what are thePlatformplans

[Michael Valenta <Michael_Valenta@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Martin,

You have hit the nail on the head! That
is the exact problem we have with the org.eclipse.ftp plugin. The plugin
works fine with several server types but there is so much variation that
there are plenty of servers for which it fails. The org.eclipse.ftp plugin
does have the ability to be extended to connect to other server types but
the architecture could still be improved and bindings for the varios servers
would still need to be provided. I agree that an exisiting Java FTP client
that has all this already is a better choice.

As for the org.eclipse.webdav plugin,
it works fairly well but I do not believe that it supports https which
is probably essential for a WebDAV client these days. It also hasn't been
actively maintained. In order to make the claim that it is product quality,
some Eclipse project would need to commit to maintaining it.

As for the rest of the Team/Extras feature,
it is not actively maintained and we haven't even tried it in the last
year or so. We do have a month between Platform freeze and Callisto delivery
so if we can find the time, we are hoping at looking at it again to ensure
that the basic funtionality is working. We may even look at replacing the
provisional TargetResource API with the official EFS API since the two
are fairly similar. If anyone has any thoughts on this or wants to be involved,
let me know.

As for beyond 3.2, here are some ideas
I have on how we could proceed (Disclaimer: These are just ideas at this
stage and not commited plan items):

1) Bug https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=138583
is a request for a common repository browser. It's not clear at this stage
what shape it will take but in all likelyhood it will be a Common Navigator
based view to which any plugin could contribute content. This would replace
the Site Explorer and could have built in support for browsing any EFS.
More sophisticated content providers like CVS could provide custom content,
actions, etc.

2) Provide EFS bindings for the org.eclipse.ftp
and org.eclipse.wedav plugins. This would allow them to be used as the
file system for Eclipse projects or by clients who do file transfers using
EFS. Although they might not work for everyone, they would work for some
so it is probably worthwhile providing an EFS for them, in the very least.
We would need to come up with some way to ensure that these plugins did
not prevent other FTP or WebDAV EFS implementations from being used. We
could do this by providing each as a separate feature or by using custom
scheme names (e.g. eftp).

3) The Team/Extras feature uses the
synchronization framework to do file transfers. Originally, this was done
as a proof on concept to show that the synchronization framework was applicable
to more than just repository synchronization. I would be curious to know
from those that have used it what they think of the approach. If the general
concensus was that this was the way to go, then we could investigate how
to improve the support over top of EFS. However, if it was generally felt
that an alternate approach to doing file transfers was preferable, we could
work towards that.

If anyone has any comments, thoughts
or ideas about this, feel free to share them.
Michael

"Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: platform-team-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

05/18/2006 04:37 AM

Please respond to
Generic team support framework

To	"Target Management developer discussions" <dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <platform-team-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	platform-team-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx, John Arthorne/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Harm Sluiman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Subject	RE: [dsdp-tm-dev] Re: [platform-team-dev] RE: what are        thePlatformplans for Team/FTP?

As far as I know, one of the biggest problems for FTP clients
is proper directory parsing for the various platforms and
servers. Because the FTP protocol RFC does not exactly 
prescribe the format for directory listings.

Commons/Net has put quite some work in there, they have 
directory parsers for DOS, Windows, UNIX, VMS, z/OS. Plus
they have some framework for contributing directory parsers,
and for detecting the type of target platform. I don't think
the org.eclipse.ftp plugin has quite that support for 
different target platforms yet.

I'm also not sure about other features like re-get, passive
mode, multi-thread simultaneous downloads (performance).
For details you might find this article interesting:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-03-2006/jw-0306-ftp.html
Michael what would you say about the quality of FTP and
WebDAV?

The other advantage of Commons/Net is that it integrates
with Ant directly, so Ant tasks for Rlogin, rcp, telnet,
ftp are available immediately as soon as Commons/Net
is in the ant classpath.

Cheers,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber - WindRiver, Austria
+43(662)457915-85
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:dsdp-tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Atsuhiko Yamanaka
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:59 AM
> To: platform-team-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: platform-team-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
> john_arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx; slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> sluiman@xxxxxxxxxx; dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
> platform-team-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [dsdp-tm-dev] Re: [platform-team-dev] RE: what 
> are thePlatformplans for Team/FTP?
> 
> Hi,
> 
>    +-From: "Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
>    |_Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 18:24:15 +0200 _______________________
>    |
>    |For the Commons Net, let's see if EMO approves and then
> think about where
>    |to put it. But I agree that plugin and inter-project
> dependencies are
>    |not easy to decide. Perhaps if we inherit Team/Extras,
> the Commons Net 
>    |would make most sense in our project too.
>    |Any comments from the other experts on the distribution
list?
> 
> Is it so bad idea to use org.eclipse.ftp and org.eclipse.webdav for
> your plug-ins?  It seems that FTP/WebDAV Team provider do not
> run well on Eclipse 3.2RC4, but I guess that problem comes 
> from the recent
> changes(refactoring?) for them, and not from FTP/WebDAV 
> client implementations.
> Michael, are they really so incomplete or already in the 
> commercial grade?
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> --
> Atsuhiko Yamanaka
> JCraft,Inc.
> 1-14-20 HONCHO AOBA-KU,
> SENDAI, MIYAGI 980-0014 Japan.
> Tel +81-22-723-2150
>     +1-415-578-3454
> Fax +81-22-224-8773
> Skype callto://jcraft/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-tm-dev mailing list
> dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-tm-dev
> 
_______________________________________________
platform-team-dev mailing list
platform-team-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-team-dev