Community
Participate
Working Groups
The build.properties of org.eclipse.mylyn.tasks.bugs lists the schema in the source-only package, not in the binary package. This means you can't validate when you have only installed the binary runtime, when PDE is capable of looking at the binary and extracting the schema from it. http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/viewvc.cgi/org.eclipse.mylyn.tasks/org.eclipse.mylyn.tasks.bugs/build.properties?view=markup&root=Mylyn_Project 9 bin.includes = META-INF/,\ 10 plugin.xml,\ 11 about.html,\ 12 .,\ 13 icons/,\ 14 plugin.properties 15 src.includes = about.html,\ 16 schema/ I suggest that the schema is put into the bin.includes, which will allow for validation even if the source isn't present, i.e. bin.includes = META-INF/,\ schema,\ plugin.xml,\ ... src.includes = about.html I know the link is to the CVS version (which is probably out of date) but gives an idea of which file to change.
That sounds reasonable to me. I have checked platform bundles and they seem to generally only include schemas in source bundles though. Do you happen to know if there is an Eclipse guideline for this?
My question on the AC mailing list whether a policy exists didn't yield any response: http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse.org-architecture-council/msg01618.html . I have hence gone ahead and included the schema. Generally, I would recommend integrators to add the appropriate Mylyn SDK feature to their target to have access to sources. In this case there is no Java implementation required though so it makes sense to make the schema available in the binary-only distribution as well. Thanks for raising this.
Created attachment 202154 [details] mylyn/context/zip
We discussed this in the AC call today: http://wiki.eclipse.org/Architecture_Council/Meetings/September_15_2011 General thought was that exsd's in the binary bundles don't hurt. How valuable they are depends on the domain and packaging (how are ISV docs provided? Is source needed for doing anything meaningful with the extensions? How are adopters expected to learn about using the extension points?) In the Platform Project, the SDK is a package containing all of ISV Docs, source and schemas. But that doesn't mean others have to do it like that. Schemas in binary bundles make sense when extensions can be used to configure a product. We didn't feel like making a general recommendation for this on the AC, but for sure we're fine with any project adding exsd's into binary bundles.
Thanks for the detailed answer. That sounds like a very good approach and we'll follow that for Mylyn making schemas available in binaries that are intended for configuration. Sorry for missing the call. Unfortunately I didn't update my calendar.
