[wtp-dev] Re: Please review: Alternate flexible workbench proposal

[Chuck Bridgham <cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi John,

Thanks for your thoughts, 

I cc'ed the mailing list where more
discussion has been going on...

I have been following some of the discussion
on the mailing list, and I do understand the "lack" of proper
tooling for
.wtpmodules, and the usecases that have
been mentioned, especially the jar dependecies, and how the component
builder interacts with these dependencies.

I appreciate your understanding with
regards to the platform limitations supporting multiple modules, I completely
agree with
requirment to synchronize all project
dependency changes across metadata files.  I know the platform has
looked at "Nesting"
projects, but this also is a huge step
they can't commit to at this time.

I will attempt to provide additional
details on the "web" folders, and will send a note later this
week with additional scenarios covered.

This is all proposed for 1.5, on the
3.2 base, but could alter how many flexible scenarios will be supported
using the existing api.

Thanks - Chuck

Rational J2EE Tooling Team Lead
IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
Email:  cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444)

"John O'Shea" <john.oshea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

09/12/2005 07:09 AM

To	Chuck Bridgham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject	Re: Please review: Alternate flexible workbench proposal

Chuck,
                
We've been building our tools on WTP for a while now (adding new  "web
service" module types, lauchers, servers etc) and this is probably
the 
most important issue/risk on our development plan at the moment as we'll
have some re-writing to do.
                
WRT the proposal, I have some feedback
- It is a significant change, and I think you are correct to try get 
agreement among all parties as early as possible - we wouldn't like to
go through this again in 12 months time!  That said, I think the recent
discussions on e.webtools regarding flex project structure should be 
reviewed to ensure as many use cases as possible are supported or the 
user community may not be convinced - it looks like the proposal 
addresses most but as the say the devil is in the detail.  I do think
the project build properties tooling will probably have to be enhanced
to do better validation on .classpath/.wtpmodules synchronization with
the underlying workspace resources.
- I concur that introducing a AFS under IResource would lead to 
confusion, since most consider IResource to be the representation of the
physical filesystem.
- It seems a shame that the concept of multiple modules has to go but 
given the limitations of platform (specifically the shared classpath) we
understand it isn't tenable to keep them.  Projects excluding contained
project resources is probably a good alternative provided the tooling is
comprehensive to ensure that the .classpath and .wtpmodules are kept in
sync at all times.  An slightly related question - have platform ever
considered supporting projects containing projects (i.e. a tree 
hierarchy), rather than the current flat list?
- "web" folders are a good concept but I think you need to supply
more 
detail.  Will the containing project have natures/builders/features
that 
deal with 'web' folders?  Will it be able to contain java source?
Having a first class builders for non-java resources is, I think, a very
good idea.

I guess the other big question is when?  Will any of this impact 1.0
(12/05)?

Regards,

John O'Shea


Chuck Bridgham wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm trying to elicit some feedback on a few proposals from the platform
and 
> WTP in regards to our flexible project support. I know this has been
a hot 
> topic, and cause for some frustration.  Our goal is to work closely
with 
> the platform for a common solution that satisfies our requirements.
> 
> Here is the first section: 
> 
> Recently we have had two very productive meetings with the eclipse
platform 
> team, in understanding some of the proposals for V3.2 that give WTP
more 
> options in regards to flexible workspaces/projects.  During these
> meetings 4 proposals were discussed that tackle different aspects
of 
> "flexible workspaces"  Much of the existing flexible
project internal api 
> is an implementation that satisfies many of the requirements declared
last 
> year. Many of these scenarios should be solved at the platform level,
and 
> our current WTP api has a few serious restrictions that forces us
to re-
> evaluate our direction....
> 
> http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/jst/components/j2ee/proposals/WTPFlexiblePr
> ojectProposals.html 
> 
> Any feedback is appreciated.
> 
> Thanks - Chuck