My understanding was that 3.8 would also be part of Juno, the IDE
releases will just be based on 4.2. If indeed 3.8 is going to be such a
crippled release, why do it at all. Surely they will have to have 3.8
repositories to support the downstream consumers that cannot migrate to
4.2. Builds for 3.8 are still available as of M3 [1], so I would assume
there is still some support for building against that platform.
Also, I don't see how we can release RAP 1.5 based on 4.2 as that would
break API versioning rules. If we must use 4.2, then it will have to be
called RAP 2.0.
My vote is that we try to work with the appropriate projects to ensure
that we can deliver RAP 1.5 based on 3.8 as part of the Juno release. If
we have the resources, then we could look at also starting work on RAP
2.0 to be based on the 4.2 platform.
Cole Markham
[1]
http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/S-3.8M3-201110271800/index.php
On 11/14/2011 05:15 AM, Ralf Sternberg wrote:
Hi,
it seems that we are getting into a version issue in Juno: Our runtime
is based on 3.8, but Juno contains only 4.2. Since the 4.2 bundles
have started to diverge from 3.8 [1], we cannot bring the basic target
requirements into the Juno repository anymore, as this provokes the
usual version clashes. Moreover, if we continue to base our runtime on
3.8, our runtime may become incompatible with the Equinox bundles in Juno.
Since the RAP Workbench and JFace bundles are still based on 3.x, I
based the runtime on 3.8 as the natural successor of 3.7. So what are
our options?
A) Switch to 4.2 as runtime base and ensure that our JFace/Workbench
bundles remain compatible with 4.2 Equinox (not sure if there will be
any incompatible changes in Equinox).
B) Continue using 3.8 as runtime base and keep the runtime out of the
Juno repository entirely.
C) Continue using 3.8 as runtime base and keep only the basic target
requirements bundle out of the Juno repository. We'd have to ensure
that the RAP runtime works with Equinox 3.8 and 4.2.
I'd prefer to look forward and go for A). Any thoughts?
Regards, Ralf
[1]
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/cross-project-issues-dev/msg06740.html
_______________________________________________
rap-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rap-dev
_______________________________________________
rap-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rap-dev
