Bug 349446

Comment 1 Ralf Sternberg 2011-07-04 12:51:52 EDT

+1, but when we're at it, does the "widgets" segment actually make sense? Wouldn't

  org.eclipse.rap.rwt.styledtext

be sufficient? Or, if we decide to mark additions with a common path segment, what about

  org.eclipse.rap.rwt.addons.xxx

for all addons to RWT (styledtext, gmaps, carousel, ... but also filedialog which is not a widget).
I would like that much more than the somewhat longish "supplemental" we have now in the incubator.

It would also correspond well to an "Addons" section on our project page.

Comment 2 Rüdiger Herrmann 2011-07-04 15:20:23 EDT

I like the addons segment. However, I wouldn't consider styledtext and filedialog as addones. They rather implement existing APIs and therefore shouldn't carry addons in their name.

Comment 3 Austin Riddle 2011-07-05 11:24:13 EDT

(In reply to comment #2)
> I like the addons segment. However, I wouldn't consider styledtext and
> filedialog as addones. They rather implement existing APIs and therefore
> shouldn't carry addons in their name.

I very much agree. I don't really like the length of the word "supplemental" but it really captures the correct semantic of those items.  Perhaps synonyms like: 

"auxiliary", "adjunct" or "accessory" might be more palatable.

Comment 4 Ralf Sternberg 2011-07-07 18:00:44 EDT

(In reply to comment #2)
> I like the addons segment. However, I wouldn't consider styledtext and
> filedialog as addones. They rather implement existing APIs and therefore
> shouldn't carry addons in their name.

From my perspective they implement existing APIs but the implementations are provided by "add-on" bundles because these widgets are not available in the official distribution of RAP. I meant the term add-on to refer to the packaging, not the API. Does that make sense?

If we consider a certain widget the "official" implementation but don't want to include it into the rwt bundle (because of its size or dependencies), this would be a different case. In this case I would prefer to simply call it org.eclipse.rap.rwt.xxx.

But neither the styledtext nor the filedialog seem to be the one-and-only implementations of the respective API. For example, somebody may provide an alternative FileDialog that accesses the server file system.

Comment 5 Rüdiger Herrmann 2011-07-08 11:18:51 EDT

(In reply to comment #4)
> [ ... ]
> 
> But neither the styledtext nor the filedialog seem to be the one-and-only
> implementations of the respective API. For example, somebody may provide an
> alternative FileDialog that accesses the server file system.
In the light of having e.g. multiple implementations of styled text, the addons segment makes of course sense.

Comment 6 Ralf Sternberg 2012-07-18 08:23:30 EDT

Since the styledtext implementation had not been maintained for years and we considered its approach inferior, we did not migrate it from the CVS sandbox to the RAP Incubator.
If someone is interested and willing to maintain this widget, we can create a new Incubator component for it.