I'm wondering if we can maybe split WOLips into another set of
features that have these dependencies. I'm happy to do without TPTP
at the moment, and actually when it's all said and done, I think I'd
rather not have Web Tools Project either (my preference would be to
write a much lighter HTML syntax colorizer, or maybe find another
html plugin that doesn't bring along so many dependencies). I think
WTP and TPTP have definitely jumped the complexity/size up for what
really isn't that much gain. Are other people using features of WTP
as part of WOLips beyond just the HTML syntax coloring? I think if
we had a smaller set of plugins for the HTML part that we could do a
lot fancier stuff from a WOLips/WOD integration standpoint.
Unfortunately to really fix any issues right now, we have to submit
patches back to WTP and then wait on their release cycle (which
sounds like a painful process). As always, just my two cents.
Ulrich spent a lot of time on the WTP integration and the TPTP stuff
(which is also brand new, so I can't judge it at the moment), so I
don't mean to come off as ungrateful. I just want to try and
streamline deployment/installation/stability for people.
Anjo -- Re: your other problems. Are your issues with wodclipse
specifically (i.e. the .wod editor part) or the component editor
(i.e. the composite editor view around them all)? Component Editor's
not my bag, but if your issues are specifically with the wod editor,
I'm definitely interested to hear what problems you're having. If
the filing bugs process is annoying, feel free to email me your
issues directly to me and I'll do the dirty work to log them/fix them :)
ms
On Nov 3, 2005, at 6:55 PM, Anjo Krank wrote:
> Hellloooo?
>
> I'm *really* *not* happy with this. I appreciate the work that Mike
> (and Ulrich of course, too) has done and all, but there are a ton
> of issues with the WodClipse plugin which is breaking our workflow
> (yes, I'll write bug reports in due time).
>
> So I don't feel confident that pulling yet *another* 40MB of
> unsupported stuff is a particular bright idea. A bit more open
> discussion as to what is planned and why it is needed wouldn't be bad.
>
> Otherwise for the convenience of our present users, we should make
> a branch that supports the current 3.1 eclipse and has a stable
> [whatever feature set] so they/we can keep on doing whatever they
> do instead of wondering about failing launches and the like.
>
> The build right before the wodclipse stuff seemed pretty stable, so
> can't we make a release from that?
>
> Cheers, Anjo
>
> Am 02.11.2005 um 10:10 schrieb Anjo Krank:
>
>> Uhm, last time I checked, there was no support for OSX in TPTP? So
>> what do we need it for?
>>
>> Cheers, Anjo
>>
>> Am 29.10.2005 um 12:57 schrieb Ulrich Köster:
>>
>>> Moin list,
>>>
>>> if you're not building from source ignore this message.
>>>
>>> SDK:http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=/tptp/
>>> 4.1.0/TPTP-4.1.0-200509090100/tptp.sdk-TPTP-4.1.0-200509090100.zip
>>>
>>> Runtime:http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=/tptp/
>>> 4.1.0/TPTP-4.1.0-200509090100/tptp.runtime-
>>> TPTP-4.1.0-200509090100.zip
>>>
>>> WOLips should build fine against both.
>>>
>>> SDK is required when you plan to enhance the features in WOLips.
>>>
>>> Runtime for WOLips User.
>>>
>>>
>>> Uli
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Nov 03 2005 - 19:13:38 EST