Re: Building eclipse requires tptp

From: Mike Schrag (mschra..dimension.com)
Date: Sat Nov 05 2005 - 12:08:43 EST

  • Next message: Anjo Krank: "Re: Building eclipse requires tptp"

    > For me it's a really bad idea to reinvent the wheel again. First we
    > create an html editor with coloring. After that formatting, code
    > completion, validation an so on. I don't have the time to create
    > all that stuff.
    >
    > For instance, I'll use the code completion in the html editor to
    > select a wodentry of a given weboject tag. Were just at the
    > beginning of the integration.
    Definitely valid points ... I think my concern is that we're almost
    certainly going to have to keep modifying WTP to do the things we
    need to do, which means we're likely to be off their release cycle
    for a while. We're going to have to deploy a custom version of at
    least part of the plugins in the meantime, which means that if people
    use WTP for other things, they can't update it independently. If
    everyone is OK with this, then I'm OK with it (I don't want to rock
    the boat :) ), but I look at, for instance, the couple months that we
    had to have the patch for Eclipse and how difficult that was for
    people to manage. I guess the big question is whether it makes more
    sense to 1) accept WTP as it is including its current limitations
    (patch it, submit, and wait to include when they release w/ those
    patches), 2) continue like we are with customizations (which means if
    we patch on 0.7, you can't upgrade to 0.8 necessarily), or 3)
    something else :)

    You are right, though, that if we go down the path of a separate impl
    that it's just going to be a wheel reinvention and I DO like the CSS
    Editor :) So what is the consensus on the best course of action?

    ms



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat Nov 05 2005 - 12:08:54 EST