Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tm-dev] Question on terminal migration / dependencies

Hi Rob,

 

Regarding (1) below, the difference between the two implementations is:

-          o.e.rse.terminals.feature defines an RSE “subsystem” and uses the RSE “Terminals” view, just like the old legacy addon.

-          o.e.tm.terminal.view.rse.feature uses the TM “Terminals” view, so you avoid multiple terminals views. It contributes commands into the rse tree, but for SSH only.

 

Benefit of the 2nd approach is the unified view, plus persistence of connections in the Terminal view so they are easier to re-use.

Benefit of the 1st approach is the (theoretical) ability to use terminals for non-SSH connections, ie contributed services.

 

Please let us know which approach is your preference, this is also interesting for us as a project.

 

Thanks,

Martin

--

Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Owner – Development Tools, Wind River

direct +43.662.457915.85  fax +43.662.457915.6

 

From: tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stieber, Uwe
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:54 AM
To: TM project developer discussions
Subject: Re: [tm-dev] Question on terminal migration / dependencies

 

Hi Rob,

 

>1) Has RSE itself been marginally migrated to use the new terminal? Actions / etc? 

 

The “RSE Terminals” implementation (org.eclipse.rse.terminals feature) has been adopted to use the terminal widget from TM Terminal 4.0. This will be released with RSE 3.8 (you can get it from [1]). It provides the same functionality as before, but based on TM Terminal 4.0.

 

The “RSE Terminals” feature can be also replaced by the newer “TM Terminal View Remote System Explorer add-in” (o.e.tm.terminal.view.rse.feature). This feature provides a similar integration with RSE but is using the “Terminal” view provided by TM Terminal 4.0. Using the new feature unifies all terminal related functionality to use the TM Terminal 4.0 “Terminal” view.

 

>2) Assuming our product's target platform needs a terminal feature to be included, how would we go about doing that?

 

You have the option to either include the “All-In-One” feature (o.e.tm.terminal.feature) or to pick the view (o.e.tm.terminal.view.feature), the widget (o.e.tm.terminal.control.feature) and the desired connectors (o.e.tm.terminal.connector.*.feature) individually. We recommend to use the “All-In-One” feature as it includes the new local terminal as well.

 

>We've tried including org.eclipse.tm.terminal.feature, but it seems to miss the requirement of >org.eclipse.tm.terminal.connector.local.feature.  Following the dependency chain, we'd eventually need  <unit >id="org.eclipse.cdt.core.linux.x86_64" version="5.3.0.201505050312"/>  in the TP as well, and it feels incorrect to be putting platform->specific bundles on the TP.  Any advice here?

 

Please include the “org.eclipse.cdt.native” feature, which is available since CDT 8.4 ([2]). This features bundles only the required CDT native tools without including the whole CDT core feature.

 

Best regards, Uwe J

 

[1] http://download.eclipse.org/tm/updates/4.0milestones

[2] http://download.eclipse.org/tools/cdt/releases/8.4

 

 

From: tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob Stryker
Sent: Dienstag, 12. Mai 2015 18:49
To: tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [tm-dev] Question on terminal migration / dependencies

 

Hi All:

Our product is still using RSE, and I'm curious how this relates to the terminal migration and Mars. So a few questions:

1) Has RSE itself been marginally migrated to use the new terminal? Actions / etc? 
2) Assuming our product's target platform needs a terminal feature to be included, how would we go about doing that?

We've tried including org.eclipse.tm.terminal.feature, but it seems to miss the requirement of org.eclipse.tm.terminal.connector.local.feature.  Following the dependency chain, we'd eventually need  <unit id="org.eclipse.cdt.core.linux.x86_64" version="5.3.0.201505050312"/>  in the TP as well, and it feels incorrect to be putting platform-specific bundles on the TP.  Any advice here?

Thanks in advance all.

- Rob Stryker


Back to the top