[news.eclipse.technology.epf] Re: How do I avoid circular references and

["Peter Haumer" <phaumer@xxxxxxx>]

Hello Rob.
You got it right.  A bit of architectural layering is required here.  You 
can move elements up a layer or move elements down a layer.  You could 
set-up a hierarchy of base plug-ins (i.e. more than one base plug-in; higher 
layer) if it is possible to partition the interdependent content.   You can 
also create integration plug-ins (lower layer) that depend on the plug-ins 
that they integrate and use contribution to add cross-plug-in relationships. 
For example, the integration plug-in could contains tasks that contribute to 
a base task input/output relationships to work products from the different 
plug-ins that you want to integrate.

-- 


Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.

______________________________________________________________

PETER HAUMER
IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
______________________________________________________________
"Rob Robason" <rob.robason@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:epdvle$mbn$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> After experiencing the cons of creating circular references, I'm eager to 
> avoid that in the future, but some of the plugins I'm working on seem to 
> demand them. I'm looking for a way to structure my information to avoid 
> catastrophe.
>
> I've opted to use Option 1:  Organizing the content packages along the 
> major areas of concern of the plug-in. from the Packaging Guidelines in 
> the Plug-in Development Guide. My plugins are structured along the lines 
> of the CMMI process areas.
>
> What I'm finding now is that dependencies between process areas are 
> forcing me to move more and more content into my top level plugin in order 
> to avoid circular references.
>
> So here's my dilemma: I'd prefer to create a single plugin with multiple, 
> per-process-area, content packages that can cross reference each other, 
> but I need to have multiple people working on these materials in parallel, 
> and collisions in the plugin.xmi file seem to preclude that approach.
>
> Am I missing something? Is there a way around this?
>
> -- 
> Rob Robason
> Software Process Manager
> Wind River Systems
>