Rob,
 
The question of allowing multiple modules per project has a long and
sordid past. Actually, there was a brief period in time when that was
actually sort of supported. The problem is that by allowing it, we were
going against the grain of all of Eclipse and had to fight and/or
re-implement things instead of seamlessly integrating. Here are two of
the problem areas as an example, but there were many other: (1) can only
have one classpath per project - want to have separate classpath for
each module, (2) can only have one list of builders per project - want
to have separate list of builders for each module, (3) want to have
module-level preferences - can only have project properties. In the end,
it was decided that WTP was not the appropriate level to solve this
problem. A series of enhancement requests were opened to Eclipse
platform to support interleaved project directories, which would serve
the same purpose of allowing user to organize their files physically in
any way they choose without messing with Eclipse project model. Some of
these requests have been resolved, but there are still many outstanding
issues.
 
Regarding your specific question about ejb 3.0 facet, there will be a
discussion about this at tomorrow's J2EE Working Group meeting. Are you
planning on dialing in?
 
- Konstantin

________________________________

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Rob Stryker
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:44 AM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: [wtp-dev] WTP facets / Module group membership


I recently commented on an ejb3-related discussion, but I feel the issue
I bring up is project-wide and could benefit from wider group
discussion.
 
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=167101
 
My comment is included below:
 
 
The JBoss Team's question, ejb3 specific:  Does the jst.ejb 3.0 facet
need to
be a member of "modules"?  Clearly ejb3 is different enough that it
doesn't

need it's own project, as it's pojo-based.

The wider question (which should, perhaps, be its own bug /
discussion?):
   What is the reason that every member of group "modules" conflicts
with group

"modules"?  

Perhaps I dont understand the depth of the API, but what benefit do you
get out
of declaring each project can only have one module type? So far, the
only
benefit I've discovered is that it makes the packaging and publishing of
WTP

projects very standardized, figuring out the parent / child project
relationships, and then packaging accordingly. 

Many users will still insist on doing their packaging in a customized
way,
refusing to use the standard packaging supplied by wtp and jst generic
servers.

They may use their own ant script or some other mechanism / plugin.

In that case, limiting the number of modules to one per project seems to
be
highly restrictive with very little benefit.   

This becomes even more of a problem when other units of functionality
require

specific facets (like JSF requiring a project with the web facet, which
automatically means an ear, ejb, etc project cannot include the jsf
functionality.) 

You'll probably all say there's no reason for an EAR or EJB project to
include

any JSF-related code, anyway, and you'd be right, but many users are
resentful
of having to split their application into so many units according to
webtools'
restrictions. They'd rather structure their projects as they see fit,
and

sometimes this means creating projects with multiple modules types. 

So again, what actual benefit is there to restricting on module type? 
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev

Reply via email to