I like EP's schemas to provide structured input to the various extensions. With DS you can only provide key/value pairs making it difficult to mimic this. Or was this a question specific to E4's UI contributions?
2013/7/11 Tom Schindl <[email protected]> > 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 >> [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
