[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [ide-dev] IDE working group questions
|
I agree I don't want to see a monolithic IDE, but I would like to see a place
where focus areas like usability, performance and keeping the IDE modern are in
focus.
I feel most of platform works very much in isolation and only reacts (and rightfully so)
when enough have pointed out the same issue enough times.
I feel creating a working group which could have as goal to at least improve one or two key
aspects for the release train based on experience from the many eclipse based IDE's out there
would be an interesting approach.
From talking with guys from SpringSource, IBM, Oracle etc. we all seem to solve the same
issues but never realize we both did it because we don't really have a forum to discuss or
affect the "Eclipse IDE" in concert.
/max
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:58:17AM -0700, Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:
I don't think we need another container project or a monolithic "IDE"
project to hold features that don't find place in existing projects. These
days, it is a lot easier to create a micro-project under say Tools or
Technology than it used to be. It isn't a matter of a few clicks, like it
should be, but it is a lot better than what it used to be and you meet a lot
less resistance along the way.
I am personally of the opinion that it isn't good to keep growing the size
of the platform. The platform should stay small to be suitable to a wide
variety of usecases and be mainly concerned with facilitating work happening
elsewhere. We do not need to stuff more into the platform to improve Eclipse
IDE.
- Konstantin
From: ide-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ide-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 11:41 AM
To: Discussions about the IDE
Subject: Re: [ide-dev] IDE working group questions
Maybe this is a case where the Eclipse IDE Project makes sense. Then we
wouldn't be having this discussion and the Eclipse IDE would have it's image
viewer. Mind you, we still might need changes to the Platform to enable it,
but they would be in the right direction of making the Platform more
pluggable.
BTW, we have a lot of functionality in the CDT that really belongs in the
Platform, In Our Humble Opinion. We just found it easier (back in the dark
times), to just implement it close to home. I wonder how many other projects
have done the same. I'd bet we could build up an IDE project with a lot of
functionality day one.
But I'd like to hear from Platform leadership team first. Does the Platform
want to open up more in this direction? Or would they prefer we find a
different home for these common features.
Doug.
From: Konstantin Komissarchik <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Discussions about the IDE <ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, 21 October, 2013 2:20 PM
To: 'Discussions about the IDE' <ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ide-dev] IDE working group questions
Having been involved in the discussion and having made several attempts to
facilitate a solution, I see the image viewer story as most illustrative of
what happens when a contributor is unwilling to be flexible. Various options
were offered that would have led to an image view in Eclipse IDE packages,
but it was either in platform or nowhere, so in the end we have no image
viewer in Eclipse IDE to date.
Projects will reject features for various reasons. We need to be ready to
find alternate accommodations and contributors need to be flexible enough to
work with such accommodations. We are certainly better prepared for this
today than six years ago. EMO is more willing than before to accept
micro-projects and improvements in common infrastructure (such as the common
build system) make it a lot less costly to have a project around a single
feature, if such thing is necessary.
- Konstantin
From: ide-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ide-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 10:55 AM
To: Discussions about the IDE
Subject: Re: [ide-dev] IDE working group questions
BTW, to be fair fair about the image viewer story, the rejection happened 6
years ago near the end of the dark times.
From: Eugene Ostroukhov <eostroukhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Discussions about the IDE <ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, 21 October, 2013 1:39 PM
To: Discussions about the IDE <ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ide-dev] IDE working group questions
I do not make purchasing/consortium participation decisions on behalf of
NVIDIA. I am an input to such decisions made by my superiors.
What I am writing to this list is my personal opinion.
At NVIDIA, I am working on "Nsight Eclipse Edition" - that is an
Eclipse-based IDE for CUDA developers. Before NVIDIA I was working on other
Eclipse-based IDEs (paid or not).
I find it ironic that it is possible to get GSoC student work on adding
generics to the JFace into the main repo, while experienced developer's
contribution of image viewer (I mentioned the bug number in my original
letter) was rejected with prejudice. I personally had to implement similar
viewer more then once for different projects.
I am looking at this WG from a point of view "what would we get for
participation" - as this is the question I need to answer if I raise this
topic with my manager.
Personally, I believe there is a need for a more open collaboration place
for adopters to work on what they see as a better Eclipse Platform for IDEs.
Currently adopters are forced to ship their own forks - so I wonder if this
project could become some sort of unified fork that better suits the needs
of IDEs.
One thing I would like to point out is that for some teams it might be
easier to contribute developer time than money as those decisions are made
on different levels and development teams more readily recognize the value
of collaboration.
Best regards,
Eugene
On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Marcel Bruch <marcel.bruch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Before playing this back-and-forth:
What's your position on the WG - or funding developers in general that work
on, say, JDT, CDT or EMF? Are you looking at this from an investors view
point or more from a developer's view point. Not sure what the role of a
lead architect at nvidia is.
In any case, from your writing I get the impression that you don't see any
good way to contribute to the existing platform (no critic in here). If
that's true, what can we do? Will all tries to modernize the Eclipse IDE
fail?
Marcel
Am 21.10.2013 um 17:54 schrieb Eugene Ostroukhov <eostroukhov@xxxxxxxxxx>:
Gunnar,
Replies inline.
So let's imagine some company is really bothered by such issues and joins
this working group (note the hefty price tag of $120k/year).
The price tags are just a proposal and haven't been validated currently. But
I think you are referring to the highest one which includes steering
committee membership.
My understanding is that non-steering participation does not give any voting
rights.
1. Are there any guarantees somebody would actually implement these
enhancements? What may prevent these funds from being spent on EMF
enhancements if they get more votes?
I think it will be important to make that the working group operates open
and transparent. Therefore, the whole funding and wishlist including voting
will be visible. That allows to make a clear judgment on what impact
specific funding will make.
This means that either companies invested in CDT or EMF will not get what
they joined for.
2. What would be a timeframe before implementation starts? Would there be a
committed delivery schedule?
I expect this to happen as part of the work item analysis and upon
assignment of such items to the implementation partner.
How will this happen? A lot of time will be spent defining the "wish list",
then RFPs will be sent out, prospecting "implementation partners" will
submit proposals, voting on proposals will commence, so on? Sounds like
years will pass without any output.
3. How could such a general-purpose text editor avoid sharing the fate of
Bug <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=155323> 155323?
It's an important role of the working group steering committee to find
solutions to such problems. I could imagine that if no project is willing to
accept a feature such as a general purpose image viewer or text file editor,
the work is brought in as a new project and made available as part of the
release train and in the downloadable packages.
I do not think these two items can happen without at least some platform
changes (I am only familiar with E3 - and at least hooks will have to be put
there).
Best regards,
Eugene
_____
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure
or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the
original message.
_____
_______________________________________________
ide-dev mailing list
ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ide-dev
_______________________________________________
ide-dev mailing list
ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ide-dev
_______________________________________________
ide-dev mailing list
ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ide-dev
