Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Feedback on the europa update site

[Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Just to clarify something, to have a
feature be available an installable from an update site it does NOT have
to be listed in the site.xml.  The site.xml is used to show users
what is available for them to select and download.  Depending on the
workflow the features that are used by other projects could be put on the
Europa site but not in the site.xml.  People should then be able to
tell update manager to get the required features as well.  Of course,
there may well be a reality issue blocking this theory...

Jeff

Pascal Rapicault/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

05/30/2007 06:11 PM

Please respond to
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject	Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Feedback on the europa update site

John,

If I recall properly those features for BIRT and others would still have
to
be available from the europa update site and the "enabling feature"
category seems to be a good place.

PaScaL


                    
                     
                     
          
             jograham@sybase.c    
                     
                  
             om        
                     
                     
       
             Sent by:      
                     
                     
To 
             cross-project-iss    
    Cross project issues            
   
             ues-dev-bounces@e    
    <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.o 
             clipse.org      
         rg>          
                     
                    
                     
                     
       cc 
                    
                     
                     
          
             05/29/2007 10:36    
                     
           Subject 
             AM        
               Re: [cross-project-issues-dev]
     
                    
                  Feedback
on the europa update site  
                    
                     
                     
          
             Please respond to    
                     
                  
               Cross project  
                     
                     
                  issues  
                     
                     
    
             <cross-project-is  
                     
                    
             sues-dev@eclipse.    
                     
                  
                   org>
                     
                     
       
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          




>  - DTP is just overkill for an end user. Could not we have just
two
entries, general Data tools and SQL based data tools, and put all the
enablement features in a sub category? <

I can see Pascal's point here, and I'd like to group the DTP features into
two wrappers, like we talked about at the beginning of Europa: end-user
and
extender. Before doing so, however, I'd just like to confirm that this
grouping (which would mean having only two features in features-dtp.xml
for
Europa, but wrapping/including the current complete set) would still allow
other projects, such as BIRT, that depend on specific included features
to
access them in the same way as they do now. (For instance, if someone
selects BIRT features that require parts of DTP, then "select required"
will find still find the features).

Regards,
John Graham
Eclipse Data Tools Platform PMC Chair
Staff Software Engineer, Sybase, Inc.
http://dataplat.blogspot.com/




             Pascal Rapicault
             <Pascal_Rapicault
             @ca.ibm.com>    
                     
                    To
             Sent by:      
           cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
             cross-project-iss    
    g
             ues-dev-bounces@e    
                     
               cc
             clipse.org
                    
                     
                     
  Subject
                    
                  [cross-project-issues-dev]
Feedback
             05/28/2007 10:55    
     on the europa update site
             PM


             Please respond to
               Cross project
                  issues
             <cross-project-is
             sues-dev@eclipse.
                   org>







Hi,

Starting from a platform binary download, I decided to see what I could
get
from Europa.
Overall I was pretty amazed by the amount of stuffs that I could get but
still a bit disappointed to see that Subversive and PDT were missing. Too
bad we can't force people in the train :-)

I have noticed a bunch of weirdness for which I have / will open bug
reports against various components. But here are a few general points:

- I found pieces that I was not expecting, did the rules changed for
      - SDKs for the following components DLTK Core SDK
(in the
enablement), Corona client and servers, EMF, SDO, JET, EODM, OCL, UML2,
DTP, DLTK Ruby, DLTK Tcl, Remote system explorer extender S
      - Examples:  ECF

- A lot of features had a lot of cryptic names, not easing the readability
of the list, for example:
      - EODM
      - Dynamic Languages Toolking (DLKT) Ruby
      - IPExact Editor and Checker
      - TPTP Tracing and Profiling Tools project (in fact
all the TPTP
features say TPTP in the name)

- The categorization of features could be improved
      - Could / should DALI be moved to the Java Development,
what about
some
      - Some features of "Remote Access and Device
Development" could be
moved under C/C++
      - Should CVS be moved under the "Collaboration"
category?

- Description (blob of text under the features list) and number of features
not user friendly. Some components just have too many features presented
to
the end user:
      - DTP is just overkill for an end user. Could not
we have just two
entries, general Data tools and SQL based data tools, and put all the
enablement features in a sub category?
      - Corona, do we really want to make the server installable
from here?
what would one do with a server installed in such a way?
      - Remote system explorer, same problem than DTP.
      - Overall the descriptions should be reviewed to help
the user makes
a choice whether or not he/she needs this functionality. If no good
description can be found, then the feature should probably move into the
"enablement feature" category :-) Also we should probably using
the word
"feature" in the description.

HTH,

PaScaL

_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev



_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev