Community
Participate
Working Groups
I can create features using existing OSGi launch configurations. I think we should integrate RAP Launch configurations as well. Maybe we need to extend PDE at this time ;)
Created attachment 196492 [details] Proposed PDE patch This is a patch for pde.ui and pde.launching. It adds the RAP Launcher id to the launching bundle and adds support for creating features based on RAP launch configurations. I think we should discuss these changes before we contribute it back to PDE.
Created attachment 196765 [details] An alternative to the proposed PDE patch As we already discussed I like a configurable way to contribute launch configurations which can be used to create feature projects. Therefore, this patch defines an extension point which can be used to contribute launch configurations for feature project creation.
Hi Beyhan, I reviewed your patch. There are some things to do before we can contribute it to PDE: 1) The extension point documentation contains some spelling errors and doe snot fit to the other pde ext points. 2) Your Extension point covers only the create feature wizard. There are a lot of other places where this extension is useful. Just open a call hierarchy of org.eclipse.pde.launching.IPDELauncherConstants.OSGI_CONFIGURATION_TYPE. E.g. this is also used when creating products. 3) The name of the schema file doesn't fit into the other pde schemas. 4) The launchers that can use this extension point are always OSGi based. So, why is there a flag for OSGi? 5) You should migrate the current OSGi launchers (Eclipse Application/OSGi Framework) to use this ext point. 6) As I mentioned above there are several places where it makes sense to hook a launcher. So, I suggest to name the ext point "launcherHook". What do you think? I mean such a hook is useful on all places where a launcher has bundles and the UI needs these. The launcherHook should only have one element "launchConfigurationType" which just needs an id. The id should be browseable. 7) There are no Tests! When these changes are made I think we are good to contribute the patch to pde. Cheers Holger
Created attachment 199093 [details] updated alternative patch
Created attachment 199094 [details] tests for updated alternative patch
Created attachment 199095 [details] mylyn/context/zip
(In reply to comment #3) See my comments below. I think the patch is ready to be contributed. There are tests and I tested it. Works fine for me. @Holger can you take a look please and give a feedback. > 1) The extension point documentation contains some spelling errors and doe snot > fit to the other pde ext points. I updated it. Took the name "launcherHook". Sounds reasonable for me. > 2) Your Extension point covers only the create feature wizard. There are a lot > of other places where this extension is useful. Just open a call hierarchy of > org.eclipse.pde.launching.IPDELauncherConstants.OSGI_CONFIGURATION_TYPE. E.g. > this is also used when creating products. The extension point covers now feature creation and product creation. I didn't find other possibilities for this extension point. > 3) The name of the schema file doesn't fit into the other pde schemas. I updated to "launcherHook.exsd" > 4) The launchers that can use this extension point are always OSGi based. So, > why is there a flag for OSGi? Not only. Eclipse Application launchers can use it also. They aren't OSGi based > 5) You should migrate the current OSGi launchers (Eclipse Application/OSGi > Framework) to use this ext point. Done > 6) As I mentioned above there are several places where it makes sense to hook a > launcher. So, I suggest to name the ext point "launcherHook". What do you think? > I mean such a hook is useful on all places where a launcher has bundles and the > UI needs these. The launcherHook should only have one element > "launchConfigurationType" which just needs an id. The id should be browseable. > 7) There are no Tests! I provided tets for the parts which I think should be tested.
Hi Beyhan, I reviewed your patch and I think we are good to go. I will open a bug against pde and sedn you the id. Can you please merge your two patches into one and submit it with a good explanation what it does to the pde bug?
(In reply to comment #8) > Hi Beyhan, > I reviewed your patch and I think we are good to go. I will open a bug against > pde and sedn you the id. Can you please merge your two patches into one and > submit it with a good explanation what it does to the pde bug? Ok, give me the id when you have it.
I opened a bug against PDE: 351546: Introduce launcher hooks for bundle based launch configurations I will make this bug depend on the PDE bug because when PDE adopts the functionality we can create such an Extension.
