[news.eclipse.tools] Re: M4 flexible project structure

["Jonathan Gossage" <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Andrew McCullough" <mccull1NOSPAMPLEASE@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:atv8gj$s7q$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Please forgive me if I am oversimplifying - things may be more complex
than
> they appear.
>
> <SNIP>
> > Base
> >    Release5 -- This should be the root of an Eclipse workspace
>
> Why?  Your workspace can be located anywhere.  Just root your _projects_
> starting wherever they make sense.  Seems to me that your project root
would
> be ReleaseX, and java, java-infrastructure, and java-test would be source
> folders.  In fact, it is not clear to me why this would not have worked
for
> you even before flexible project -- but I assume I am missing something in
> the details.

Under M3 and earlier I kludged up a solution using our SCM to remap the
structure within the SCM into an on-disk structure that was acceptable to
Eclipse. In this structure the projects did live as sub-directories within
the workspace without problems and I expected it to continue to work in M4.
You are correct that there is no compelling reason for the projects to be
sub-directories of the workspace. This was simply a pattern that had worked
up to now.

The real problem is that that mapping capabilities of our SCM (it's VSS) are
flaky. The SCM tends to forget the mappings under certain conditions. In
addition the VSS Eclipse plugin was not happy with radical remapping and
insisted in bringing in too much of the project tree from the repository.
The problems are severe enough that it has prevented the adoption of Eclipse
by team members other than myself. So I am hoping to be able to use the
facilities in M4 to map the source tree, as structured in the repository,
into Eclipse projects.
>
>
> >       doc
> >       classes --- The output tree
> >       src
> >           cpp
> >           java
> >           java-infrastructure
> >           java-test
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> >    "Project contents cannot be inside workspace directory"
>
> My guess is you are misconceiving where the workspace needs to be.  The
only
> thing that _must_ be in the workspace is the .metadata used by Eclipse.
All
> of your projects can (and in my opinion, should) be rooted elsewhere on
your
> file system.  Obviously there are exceptions -- like imported plugins,
etc.
>
> Set your workspace to C:\Eclipse\Workspaces\WorkspaceXYZ, then add your
> projects by specifying a "non-default" location.
>
> > I have two questions.
> > 1. What rule did I break to cause the diagnostic?
> > 2. Assuming that the first problem can be solved, is there enough
> > functionality in the new flexible project structure support to allow me
to
> > create a project that manages the "utilities" directory, and separate
> > projects that manage the "configuration", "gui", and "ui" directories
that
> > exist under the "utilities" directory.
> <SNIP>
>
> Projects do not have to be so fine-grained -- is there some reason why you
> need it to work that way?

We would prefer to have projects correspond with current code ownership. In
this particular case the "configuration", "gui", and "ui" directories were
created long after the original "utilities" directory and each is owned by a
different individual. While I, personally, would like to soften the "code
ownership" concept, it is a current reality in our organization.
Unfortunately this is an issue where logic tends to be subordinated to
"turf".
>
> -Andrew


Thanks for your help

Regards

Jonathan Gossage