geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <jgenen...@savoirtech.com>
Subject Re: Are these files ok?
Date Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:14:37 GMT
If this is the way 99% of the eclipse plugin development works, then its 
fine with me.  I don't jave time to research if this is the case, so I 
can only trust your judgement here.

However, if its only because MevenIDE does it, then I am against your 
reasoning.  IMHO, Geronimo is maven based and this should go for all the 
projects, and all of the Geronimo code base should follow consistency 
within the project.  Again, if its an expectation and the way things are 
done for nearly all eclipse projects to have a pre configured .classpath 
as a part of the source code, then I will support this.  But I won't if 
you are choosing one-off projects that use this paradigm.  I will 
delegate that ultimate decision to you.

Jeff

Sachin Patel wrote:
> The .classpath files are not included as part of the binary, :).  The 
> consistency I'm referring to and concerned about is with the Eclipse 
> development model, and that we're refraining too far from it.  From an 
> eclipse developers standpoint, I think Eclipse itself will still be the 
> primary build tool, not Maven.  By Mavenizing the eclipse plugins, we're 
> provding the build infrastructure to provide binary distributions, just 
> like if we had chosen the Ant based PDE builder.  Neither of these are 
> meant to use for day to day development. (speaking only from a eclipse 
> standpoint). I think its very important that we provide developers the 
> recommended path that is known to them, and that is to be able to (1) 
> checkout the plugins from the repo, and (2) import those plugins into 
> directly Eclipse without any external tools.
> If this was a regular java project or another component within Gerino, 
> I'm in 100% total agreement here with you.  However its not, we're more 
> specific here.  Rather then adapting a java project for use in a 
> particular IDE.  We already know the project itself is an Eclipse 
> project, and so we're saying lets be kind :) and help out here and go 
> ahead and include the eclipse specific resources, rather then take them 
> away.
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm getting any closer to convincing you, but I'm gonna 
> keep trying :).
> 
> If any of the Mavenide folks are reading this thread, could you provide 
> your reasoning for including the .classpath? Was your concern the same 
> as mine?
> 
> Sachin.
> 
> Jeff Genender wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>
>>> One last statement before everyone else throws there two cents in :)...
>>>
>>> I strongly believe that including this is a necessity.  Unlike 
>>> geronimo, these aren't regular java projects that can be adapted to 
>>> invoke within a users context and IDE choice and that can be launched 
>>> different ways. These projects contain eclipse specific content and 
>>> can only be launched within an eclipse environment and thus the files 
>>> are critical to the projects configuration.  By not including these 
>>> files we put a requirement on Eclipse users to have Maven and this 
>>> breaks the consistency.  
>>
>>
>> I probably need to be educated here.  Are you saying the eclipse 
>> .classpath files are included as part of the binary, or required for 
>> the build?  If its required for the binary, then I understand the need 
>> for inclusion.  If its for the build, then I disagree with you.  You 
>> need a build tool, yes?  You choose either ant or maven.  This is no 
>> different than any other project. What is the consistency you are 
>> referring to?
>>
>>> Without the files, you essentially are making the statement saying 
>>> that these projects are eclipse plugins, that will only run on top of 
>>> eclipse, but FIRST you need to launch maven for Eclipse to be able to 
>>> consume them.  I don't think that is reasonable.  Eclipse plugin 
>>> projects extracted out of the repo AS IS should be ready to be 
>>> consumed by Eclipse without the requirement for Maven.
>>
>>
>> Ok...so then you are talking about the .classpath included as part of 
>> the binary?
>>
>> Your clarification here will help me immensely ;-)
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sachin.
>>>
>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Could we just prevent that by overriding the maven:eclipse goal in 
>>>>> the projects' maven.xml and echo out a message stating a message 
>>>>> that no .classpath generation is necessary since these are already 
>>>>> eclipse projects?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lets get others' input on this.  If the .classpath inclusion is just 
>>>> for convenience, then I am against this since, again, we are 
>>>> detracting from the way geronimo does things.  Throughout geronimo, 
>>>> we let maven build the project ide files.  It makes sense due to the 
>>>> many ways these files can get changed due to people's preferences.  
>>>> I really want to have consistency in all of our projects, unless its 
>>>> absolutely necessary. Once we break consistency, we are headed down 
>>>> a slippery slope.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI. The mevenide plugin is also including the .classpath in their 
>>>>> repo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They also use cvs, so then should we drop svn and use cvs too?  
>>>> IMHO, this is comparing apples to oranges. Mevenide is not part of a 
>>>> very large application server and is not affected by a much bigger 
>>>> overall build.  Also, just because another project does it, does not 
>>>> mean its the best way for this project.  Thats a facet of all of 
>>>> open source...each project has their own way of doing things.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sachin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm now that I think about this...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sachin, these files will likely get overwritten when someone does

>>>>>> a "maven eclipse".  Be prepared for these to get overwritten 
>>>>>> fairly often, and will likely get rechecked in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I think this is needed. Since these are eclipse plugins
to 
>>>>>>>> begin with I consider these to be part of the project 
>>>>>>>> configuration.  Eclipse users should be able to directly
import 
>>>>>>>> these projects into Eclipse without having to generate the

>>>>>>>> .classpath.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As long as these have no machine specific info in it then it
may 
>>>>>>> be ok. ..ie same configuration that will work on Windows, Linux,

>>>>>>> and Mac. But normally, I am against this.  We usually use maven

>>>>>>> to generate these files for us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I noticed these files going into the eclipse plugin:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> UU   sandbox/eclipse-plugin/org.apache.geronimo.ui/.classpath
>>>>>>>>> UU   
>>>>>>>>> sandbox/eclipse-plugin/org.apache.geronimo.deployment.model/.classpath

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> UU   sandbox/eclipse-plugin/org.apache.geronimo.core/.classpath
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are these ok?  IIRC, these are user/computer specific
to the 
>>>>>>>>> user's setup.  Are these supposed to be checked in (.classpath)??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>

Mime
View raw message