Hi,
I agree with Lars. However, even option 1 seems like a duplication of
fragments and processors to me. The main disadvantage for me would be,
that you still stick to the old API. What is the advantage?
Regards
Jonas
Am 11.07.2013 11:22, schrieb Lars Vogel:
Hi Eric,
I think 1.) would be the right thing. 2.) feels like a duplication of
model fragments and model processors to me.
Best regards, Lrs
2013/7/10 Eric Moffatt <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
I'm currently looking at what we're going to do as far as
extension points go to enable folks to contribute e4 (DI) code
into the IDE and I want to get some feedback from the e4 community
as to the best way for me to do this...
I have two possible approaches:
1) Extend the current IDE extension points with e4-specific
sections (i.e. extend the existing org.eclipse.ui.views EP to
allow the addition of 'e4 View')
2) Provide separate extension points for the e4 bits (i.e. clone
the existing org.eclipse.ui.views EP and tweak it to be e4-related
Do you *want* e4 specific extension points ? This is independent
of having the ability to contribute them through fragment / model
processing (which we'll also be working on in Luna). The BOF at
last year's eclipsecon didn't come to a resolution on this (at
least not one that I remember..;-).
Let me know what you think,
Eric
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
