[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Feedback on the europa update site


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@xxxxxxxx                                            
            om                                                            
            Sent by:                                                   To
            cross-project-iss         Cross project issues                
            ues-dev-bounces@e         <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxx
            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