As to my frustrations, I was asked! :-) Yes, that is a good point you raise about the distinction between build level and user run level. I view it, however, as a beneficial short-term tactic, until WTP.2.0.1 GAs, but not a beneficial long term strategy or approach.
I think Tim provided great service and innovation by giving us build.xml to download all the required eclipse bits. I think it makes great sense to allow the user to use it to download eclipse at the same level as the build, so users could easily get the supported level. This is also well documented in the instructions at http://people.apache.org/~mcconne/releases/RC2/Geronimo_Eclipse_Plugin_2.0.0_Instructions-RC2.txt. All things considered, I think it's a good thing to build and have users run with the same level of eclipse. Ted Kirby On 9/13/07, Donald Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Understand your frustrations, but the Eclipse levels in build.xml have nothing > to do with the user runtime levels and don't need to be updated unless we want > to use newer features/APIs in future Eclipse 3.3.x or WTP 2.0.x releases.... > > I think we all have learned now not to depend on the major train releases of > Eclipse, but to wait for the first maintenance release for any expected plugin > releases.... > > We also need to continue supporting the prior Eclipse level in future plugin > updates, for any of our ISV and production users, who can't always upgrade to > the latest Eclipse levels due to other project requirements or tool > dependencies.... > > > -Donald > > Ted Kirby wrote: > > Tim and I have been working hard on getting the "Download and Install" > > function to work to download a server for the eclipse update site and > > install it your machine. The stablest level on which we have found > > this to work is WTP2.0.1RC1. Other minor issues/problems occur at > > lower WTP levels. Running and debugging the plugin in eclipse has > > been tedious and buggy. I would vote -99 for releasing the plugin on > > any level less than WTP2.0.1RC1. I have been frustrated to not be > > able to work on other things because of these issues. You may well > > judge that I am unduly focused on these issues. I am glad that you > > and others have success with the plugin and various enhancements. I > > am certainly disappointed in WTP2.0.x at this point. What level of > > WTP are you using? The WTP 2.0.1 release schedule is here: > > http://wiki.eclipse.org/WTP_Release_2.0.1_Schedule, and calls for a > > 9/28 GA. I am good with an Apache Geronimo Eclipse plugin GA running > > with WTP2.0.1RC1. Assuming WTP2.0.1 GA works as well as this one, > > when it comes out, I think we should upgrade our levels and Tim's > > build.xml to move to that level. It unfortunately seems prudent for > > us to dig into the eclipse WTP community to make sure the parts we use > > work. > > > > Ted Kirby > > > > On 9/13/07, Shiva Kumar H R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Ted, > >> I see you have updated the version of Web Tools Platform (WTP) to 2.0.1 > >> from > >> 2.0. However on > >> http://download.eclipse.org/webtools/downloads/ I see that > >> 2.0.1 is not yet released (only RC1 is available). Was it a typo? > >> > >> - Shiva > >> > >> > >> On 9/13/07, Ted Kirby <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > >>> Looks good. Thanks Tim. > >>> Attached are some minor updates/feedback on your instructions. > >>> > >>> On 9/12/07, Tim McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> Start of discussion thread..... > >>>> -- > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Tim McConnell > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > >
