Could we get rid of extension points at all and do contributions through DS?
Tom Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 11.07.2013 um 19:17 schrieb Patrick Paulin <[email protected]>: > I agree with Lars that option 1 is better. But is there a reason we couldn't > specify a POJO in the normal view "class" attribute? Whether the class > implements IViewPart or is a POJO that needs to be wrapped seems like an > implementation detail. > > --- Patrick > > On Jul 11, 2013, at 4:34 AM, Lars Vogel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My understanding of 1.) is that the framework would accept Pojos. In would >> allow a smooth migration of the existing Eclipse IDE plug-in projects. >> >> >> >> 2013/7/11 Jonas Helming <[email protected]> >>> 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]> >>>>> 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] >>>>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
_______________________________________________ e4-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
