Comment 1 Neil Hauge 2011-05-24 10:41:57 EDT

Denis,

From looking at this, it would appear that the feature list on the Indigo site is correct.  All of the non-SDK Dali features appear to be accounted for on the Indigo site. The Indigo site does not carry the SDK features that are contained in the WTP-SDK p2 archive.  That said, there does seem to be a lot of duplicates included in the WTP-SDK p2 archive if they list you provided is accurate.  We might need to clean this up.

CC'ing David in case he has any additional thoughts.

Comment 2 Denis Golovin 2011-05-24 13:52:57 EDT

(In reply to comment #1)
> Denis,
> 
> From looking at this, it would appear that the feature list on the Indigo site
> is correct.  All of the non-SDK Dali features appear to be accounted for on the
> Indigo site. The Indigo site does not carry the SDK features that are contained
> in the WTP-SDK p2 archive.  That said, there does seem to be a lot of
> duplicates included in the WTP-SDK p2 archive if they list you provided is
> accurate.  We might need to clean this up.
> 
> CC'ing David in case he has any additional thoughts.

Many projects have SDK available from Indigo update site and that's why I thought it is an requirement. 

It means as a Daly extender I cannot relay on Indigo update site and should use Web Tools Platform Update site to get SDK features. Does that sound like right approach? 

Would be much simpler just install everything from one location.

Comment 3 Neil Hauge 2011-05-24 14:07:49 EDT

The overall Web Tools project does not distribute SDK's via the Indigo site, so yes, in the case of Web Tools you would need to use the Web Tools site to retrieve SDK's.  You can use WTP's hosted p2 site for easier access to the SDK's.

http://download.eclipse.org/webtools/repository/indigo

I can bring up the issue of whether or not WTP should add SDK's to the main release site in the future.

Comment 4 Neil Hauge 2011-05-24 14:08:26 EDT

Oops...didn't mean to mark this as resolved fix.  Leaving open for the moment, although this is not something that would be addressed for Indigo.

Comment 5 David Williams 2011-05-24 14:48:03 EDT

I appreciate the discussion, but as Neil says, it is by design. The common repository is intended for "end users" (people creating web apps, in our case). 

I know not everyone uses the common repo that way, but that's what it is for (and I think everyone else is wrong :).

But I agree, its confusing, inconsistent, and am glad to discuss future changes. Unfortunately, everytime the Planning Council tries to discuss, we get stuck on defining what an SDK is ... seems everyone uses the term differently. (Not to mention, some projects have various definitions of "end user" ... some meaning even extenders). 

There may be improvements that'd be helpful in how "targets" are provided or constructed ... which I suspect would be more helpful for extenders ... since you may be using one build for your development environment (say, just Eclipse and PDE) but have other versions of WTP (and pre-reqs) in your PDE runtime targets to develop against. And there, there is supposed to be a new option to "include source if available" ... but, I've never used it and don't know much about it. But, I like the idea of keeping "WTP Installs" to a minimum, even if something larger is desired (by some) in their targets while they are developing extensions to WTP. I'm not just rambling ... but mention all this in case it helps lead to a more concrete proposal or workflow. Even an improved writeup "for extenders" would help, IMHO. 

Thanks again for the discussion,

Comment 6 Neil Hauge 2011-05-31 14:09:37 EDT

Resolving this as as-designed for now.  If you would like to see changes in this area please start a discussion with the larger WTP community, perhaps on the wtp-dev mailing list.