[news.eclipse.technology.equinox] Re: Component Model

["Olivier Gruber" <ogruber@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Yep, crystal clear :-)

So some extension points do not imply Java-level type dependencies,
but some do. This tends to augment my feeling that Java-type dependencies
belong to another level, disjoint than extension-related dependencies.
As you point out, there are two name spaces...
The more I think about it, the more I like having two separate layers,
one for Java-level components and dependencies, and the other one
for extension-related functionality.

Best regards,
Olivier.

--
Olivier Gruber, Ph.D.
Persistent & Distributed Object Platforms and Frameworks
IBM TJ Watson Research Center

"Pascal Rapicault" <pascal_rapicault@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:b35hv6$s1j$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > - Plugin prerequisite relationships are not required for the
> > > extension/extension-point model.  That is, A can extend B but not
> require
> > B.
> >
> > How is this working ?
> > I thought that most extensions were done by implementing an interface
> > or extending a class... provided by the plug-in providing the extension
> > point.
> > So A would need to require B to be able to see B's interface or class
for
> > the extension point... I am missing something ?
> >
>
> An extension does NOT always require associated Java code.
> The fact that some extensions require java code, is a specificity of the
> extension
> point that is being extended.
> For example, view categories do not require java code to be added and to
be
> displayed.
> As a consequence a plugin providing categories does need to have the ui
> plugin in its requirements.
>
> It is important to note that there is two "name spaces":
>     the first one is the java language and the second one contains
> plugin-ids / extension-points..
>
> Was I clear?
>
>     PaScaL
>
>