Bob wrote: >1. Why is this XULRunner extension point still in ATF? >This is something that really should be in the platform. I think that we should get the platform team involved. >I understand that it is easier and faster to keep it in the ATF family, but ATF doesn't own the embedded >XULRunner browser anymore. Very good point. Opening discussion would be great, but IMHO that should not slow us down in the meantime.
>2. Not having org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core dependent on org.eclipse.core. >The whole idea ATF core plugin was to provide base classes that all the other plugins need. >As ATF moves forward I can see org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core becoming more dependent on ATF code plugin. >I think that two different goals are being intermixed in one document. I am trying to achieve two goals: 1/ Avoid cross projects dependencies between Eclipse and Mozilla: having Mozilla bundles depends on Eclipse ATF and Eclipse ATF bundles depend on Mozilla's. 2/ make it easy to extract and consume the Mozilla bundle with a limited subset of ATF's, such that folsk that reuse only that (which should be in the platform) can do it . One example being Max from Jboss. >a) A XULRunner plugin that is independent of ATF. I think that this support should be in the platform. Agreed. >b) Adoptors want to use org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core independent of the rest of ATF. >Why would anybody want to do this? We have had a number of request to separate out functionality in ATF. <.....> >Nobody has requested to be able use eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core independent of the rest of ATF. The request was expressed by Max from Jboss, I can express it also on behalf of Joomla. They can today tweak the Mozilla provided plugins and then the ATF code, or they could use straight out of the box without tweaking if we do that small change. In anycase there is only one class class in o.e.a.mozilla.ide.core which provides only static utility code, and is the only ATF dependence that o.e.mozilla.ide.core has on the rest of ATF. Moving that class around is a very minor changes, which IMHO makes the overall dependency stories among our bundles cleaner and better, as there are fewer dependencies. >I can image that someone may want to use the Browser Tools independent of the rest of ATF and WTP >(org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core and org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.ui). > If that is the real requirement, then we should document that requirement and we can have a separate discussion on that topic. I know of one company that does use the mozilla.ide.core and ui together. And only that part. That could be a nice to have. And we are not very far from it (not that we need it per se) but it may even require little modifications, something like: - extract org.eclipse.atf.core/org.eclipse.atf.adapter into a new bundle called org.eclipse.atf.core.resources - move org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core/org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core.util.S ourceLocatorUtil to that new org.eclipse.atf.core.resources bundles That would probably allow to have mozilla.ide.ui, mozilla.ide.core and core.resources standalone after a very quick pass. >I think that this discussion needs to be opened up to a larger audience than just ATF dev list, >since it efforts effects people outside of the ATF community. >While working with the large eclipse community, we may need to come up with some interim solution. How would suggest we go doing it? Should we involve rather platform UI or SWT? Cordially -- Cheers Philippe http://easyeclipse.org - http://phpeclipse.net - http://eclipse.org/atf -----Original Message----- From: Robert Goodman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; AJAX Toolkit Framework discussion Subject: Re: [atf-dev] Proposed reorg of the Xulrunner extension point and the way we interact with Mozilla bundles Philippe Here are my initial comments. 1. Why is this XULRunner extension point still in ATF? This is something that really should be in the platform. I think that we should get the platform team involved. I understand that it is easier and faster to keep it in the ATF family, but ATF doesn't own the embedded XULRunner browser anymore. 2. Not having org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core dependent on org.eclipse.core. The whole idea ATF core plugin was to provide base classes that all the other plugins need. As ATF moves forward I can see org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core becoming more dependent on ATF code plugin. I think that two different goals are being intermixed in one document. a) A XULRunner plugin that is independent of ATF. I think that this support should be in the platform. b) Adoptors want to use org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core independent of the rest of ATF. Why would anybody want to do this? We have had a number of request to separate out functionality in ATF. People wanted the embedded XULRunner browser support independent of the rest of ATF, so we worked with the platform team to move it into SWT. A number of ATF adopters requested that the HTTP server support be moved into WST, which was done for WTP 2.0. We had request for a version of ATF that ran on WST without JST, which was done in the latest milestone. There have even been requests for a version of ATF that is didn't require WTP. Nobody has requested to be able use eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core independent of the rest of ATF. I can image that someone may want to use the Browser Tools independent of the rest of ATF and WTP (org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.core and org.eclipse.atf.mozilla.ide.ui). If that is the real requirement, then we should document that requirement and we can have a separate discussion on that topic. I think that this discussion needs to be opened up to a larger audience than just ATF dev list, since it efforts effects people outside of the ATF community. While working with the large eclipse community, we may need to come up with some interim solution. Thanks Bob Robert Goodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Philippe Ombredanne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/29/2007 12:07 PM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Please respond to AJAX Toolkit Framework discussion <atf-dev@eclipse.org> To"'AJAX Toolkit Framework discussion'" <atf-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject[atf-dev] Proposed reorg of the Xulrunner extension point and the way we interact with Mozilla bundles All: Please read that proposal and provide comment here in the list. http://wiki.eclipse.org/ATF/Mozilla I will be committing code in a branch for everyone to review. Cordially -- Cheers Philippe http://easyeclipse.org - http://phpeclipse.net - http://eclipse.org/atf _______________________________________________ atf-dev mailing list atf-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/atf-dev _______________________________________________ atf-dev mailing list atf-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/atf-dev
