Hi, I've started the editor but the ones doing the job must say where they want to go. I'm only contributing when I come across a miss behavior like a few weeks ago.
If you ask me the L&F of the editor has to be rewritten to match other editors in the platform. My biggest wish would have been that I can make use of the LiveEditor as well in JavaFX applications where I naturally have no SWT (well there's my SWT => JavaFX port) but this would involve a major refactoring and a big set of facade APIs so it will stay a pipe dream of myself ;-) Tom On 18.02.14 11:13, Jonas Helming wrote: > Thanks Wim! > Before we start to do anything, > Tom, as you did most of the initial contribution, what is your opinion > on this? > Same question for Lars, as you did much of the more recent improvements? > > Regards > > Jonas > > > Am 17.02.2014 21:13, schrieb Wim Jongman: >> Filed: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=428375 (Adopt the >> E4 tools Model Editor) >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 5:00 PM, John Arthorne >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I think the only location for tools that makes sense is PDE. We >> don't include plug-in tooling with the core platform because end >> users don't need it unless they are doing plugin/app development. >> To me the model editor belongs right alongside the product editor, >> manifest editors, etc as part of the main PDE install. >> >> You had a concern about the tools needing to evolve in parallel: >> that is not a problem since PDE is produced in the same build as >> the platform and they always evolve together. Your other concern >> was about PDE developers not being as well connected. Any >> contributors to the tools will be nominated as committers as part >> of the graduation process, so everyone connected with the tools >> will continue to have the same access. >> >> John >> >> >> >> From: Jonas Helming <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, >> Date: 02/17/2014 09:58 AM >> Subject: Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna? >> Sent by: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> OK, open questions for me are: >> >> 1. Where to move: Platform or PDE (as I wrote I rather prefer >> Platform) >> 2. Shall we split org.eclipse.e4.tools.services into one bundle >> which remains in e4 and move the services, which are used by the >> tools to a new bundle (or maybe just into the tools bundle. >> >> I really would like to get the opinion of committers of the target >> projects (PDE or Platform). I am willing to contribute here, but >> it does not make sense, if we do not know, whether you are willing >> to accept the tools then or which things you require to do it. >> >> Regards >> >> Jonas >> >> Am 14.02.2014 15:54, schrieb Wim Jongman: >> >> The question is, do we want to graduate the tools without full NLS >> and without testcases and documentation. >> >> My 2 cents: I am happy with the current state of the model editor >> and would not mind to graduate that. If we graduate "as is" then >> we get a lot more feedback from the community. We could even build >> something in the model editor to install the rest of the tooling >> (from incubation) on request. >> >> About documentation: Lars has documented almost everything so >> there is no direct need for "official" documentation this >> instance. However, in time, I think we need to provide "official" >> documentation from Eclipse. If Lars wants to donate some of his >> work to become official (and hosted from _eclipse.org_ >> <http://eclipse.org/>) then this would be awesome. I would not be >> surprised that the bylaws don't allow to point to Lars' site for >> documentation. >> >> Also we would publish no API. >> >> In other words, I am +1 for graduating the model editor if we >> still have time. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Wim >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jonas Helming >> <[email protected]_ >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I never received an answer to this mail, does no one have a >> opinion on this? Is anyone still interested in this topic? >> >> Best Regards >> >> Jonas >> >> >> Am 20.01.2014 19:35, schrieb Jonas Helming: >> Hi, >> >> for me the relavant questions are: >> >> 1. Which bundles to we want to graduate and move? >> >> IMHO, the Application Model Editor and the e4 project wizards >> would be most important and already a huge improvement of the >> situation. Everybody who wants to create a native e4 applications >> needs this editor. >> Far behind, I would consider th CSS editor, but I think it would >> be acceptable to still install this one. >> >> 2. Where do we want to move it? >> >> Until now, most people mentioned, that the e4 tools should be >> moved to PDE. I personally would prefer to move them to the >> platform. The editor is really closely connected to the platform, >> it even accesses some internal API. The editor must also evolve in >> parallel to the Application Model. Finally I think the developers >> of the plattform are more connected to the tools. >> >> 3. What do we need to do to make this happen? >> >> I think we should identify the shortest path to a good result. >> >> - I don't think it is essential that the editor provides a public >> API. Extending it is a rather advanced use cases. If people >> extended a non-graduated tool in the past, I think they can live >> with internal API or SPI in the future. From an API stability >> point of view, this does not make a difference. >> - We need to check, which bundles must be moved. I am worried most >> about org.eclipse.e4.tools.services, it contains parts, which are >> not only used by the Application Model editor. So we might need to >> move some things around. >> - We need to define our goals for documentation and test coverage >> >> Finally I do not think this will slow down the evolution of the >> tools. If people want to contribute, they can still do. In turn, I >> think it makes it easier and more visible to create native e4 >> applications. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Cheers >> >> Jonas >> >> P.S.: Doug, thanks fro pushing this forward, I think an opinion >> from a user point of view is very valuable for this discussion >> >> >> >> Am 20.01.2014 18:18, schrieb Doug Schaefer: >> These tools are equals to the plugin.xml and *.product editors. >> Not sure what you are getting at below. I’m pretty sure users who >> need these tools really don’t get it. >> >> Doug. >> >> *From: *David M Williams <[email protected]_ >> <mailto:[email protected]>>* >> Reply-To: *E4 Project developer mailing list <[email protected]_ >> <mailto:[email protected]>>* >> Date: *Monday, January 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM* >> To: *E4 Project developer mailing list <[email protected]_ >> <mailto:[email protected]>>* >> Subject: *Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna? >> >> Sorry if this is obvious to others, but is this tool intended to >> be a "delivery" of the "e4/sdk" product? In the sense it has APIs >> and/or could be extended? Or it is intended for use only by >> "Eclipse committers" in making Eclipse IDE? >> >> I ask since the "requirements" are quite a bit different for the >> two. If simply a "releng tool" it could be provided similar to how >> we deliver the "releng tools" from Platform (which provides >> copyright tools, and a validator for MANIFEST and POM versions >> (and some old cvs 'release' tools not used much these days). While >> the description is needs improvement, I think it's pretty clear it >> is not intended to provide API or be extended (therefore >> "compatibility", etc. is not considered that important ... we tell >> people to use the same version built with their dev. environment. >> >> But, if meant to be extendable, and provide API, etc, then there >> are higher criteria. >> >> I should add, it would be "hard" to "build with the SDK" because >> it depends on some emf components (such as emf.edit.ui?) which is >> not apart of the "base" EMF we get "early" from EMF. >> >> Hope these comments help inform the final decision. >> >> >> >> >> From: John Arthorne <[email protected]_ >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> To: E4 Project developer mailing list <[email protected]_ >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> Date: 01/19/2014 11:11 AM >> Subject: Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna? >> Sent by: [email protected]_ >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> If parts of the e4 tools graduated into PDE, then all active >> contributors to those tools would be granted PDE commit rights as >> part of the graduation/restructuring. We did the same thing with >> commit rights on other parts of e4 that graduated into the >> platform. So I don't think commit rights will be a problem at all. >> It does of course require active committers to keep maintaining it >> wherever it ends up. >> >> John >> >> >> >> From: Lars Vogel <[email protected]_ >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> To: E4 Project developer mailing list <[email protected]_ >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> Date: 01/18/2014 05:02 AM >> Subject: Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna? >> Sent by: [email protected]_ >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> I personally like that we can adjust the tooling as needed. PDE >> seems very inactive at the moment. >> >> But test, better Javadoc and fixing the outstanding bugs is good >> in general, no matter if the tools get officially released or not, >> so no need to hold such activities of. >> >> Best regards, Lars >> >> Am 18.01.2014 09:40 schrieb "Wim Jongman" <[email protected]_ >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> There are things missing in the model editor and in the tooling in >> general. Most notably unit tests, javadoc and user documentation. >> We need to fix these before a release can be considered. >> >> I am also happy to join a dedicated team that tackles this. So >> that makes two. Who wants to join us? >> >> Regards, >> >> Wim >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> e4-dev mailing list_ >> [email protected]_ <mailto:[email protected]>_ >> __https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev_ >> _______________________________________________ >> e4-dev mailing list_ >> [email protected]_ <mailto:[email protected]>_ >> __https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev_ >> _______________________________________________ >> e4-dev mailing list_ >> [email protected]_ <mailto:[email protected]>_ >> __https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev_ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> e4-dev mailing list >> [email protected]_ <mailto:[email protected]> >> _https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev_ >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> e4-dev mailing list_ >> [email protected]_ <mailto:[email protected]>_ >> __https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev_ >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> e4-dev mailing list >> [email protected]_ <mailto:[email protected]> >> _https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev_ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> e4-dev mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ e4-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
