Mike Schrag wrote:
> Points for discussion:
>
> 1) Why are all WO frameworks in a single classpath container? This
> seems like it makes everything needlessly complicated -- we have to
> write custom classpath ordering vs just using classpath itself and
> Eclipse built-in features. In reality, I believe each individual
> framework should be a container, so I would have ERExtensions.framework
> as an entry in my classpath. Then I can just reorder the frameworks
> with the classpath ordering tool, and this much more closely models how
> WO runtime will treat these.
When I wrote the original classpath container (several hundred years ago
:), having a single container and a dialog with checkboxes seemed the
simplest way to get the job done, both for coding the solution as well
as for project setup (as mentioned by Chuck Hill). Coding the dialog for
framework selection was pretty much straight forward for the single
container case. Having a single UI for multiple containers sounds like
working around the Eclipse framework's assumptions (IBM's Eclipse based
products are a good demonstration of how that can hurt the usability of
the final product).
Some other assumptions:
* ordering the frameworks should not be necessary, since there should be
no overlap between classes (but you are probably concerned about startup
order, right?)
* if you want source with your framework, you'll probably also want to
be able to change it -- and add it as another eclipse project (we only
had a handful frameworks in our projects, so this was never a problem)
* in a wo project, there should be no dependencies not managed as a bundle
Just out of curiosity -- how are those assumptions wrong in your case?
Harald
PS: I just wanted to shed some light on the first question -- everything
else are just the opinions of someone who is no longer using WO.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Nov 09 2007 - 16:32:11 EST