We also must consider the amount of work it would take to extract the console out and test it properly. I am reluctant to do any of that work when we want to eventually replace the console implementation with the gogo shell and a bundle that bridges the old equinox command implementations to the new shell.
Tom
|------------>
| From: |
|------------>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Jeff McAffer <j...@eclipsesource.com>
|
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To: |
|------------>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org>
|
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date: |
|------------>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|12/02/2010 09:37 AM
|
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject: |
|------------>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Re: [equinox-dev] Plans to replace the Console with GoGo for Indigo
|
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
The disadvantage is usability. Right now you get equinox and run with
-console and its all good. If we break it out you'll have to get two
bundles and make sure that the console bundle is started...
We have thought about shipping two setups, one with the console and one
without. That might work but we need to consider consumer confusion (which
one do I get, which one do I have, ...) and the work required to
setup/maintain the build.
Perhaps the new starter kit direction we've been exploring could offer some
help...
Anyway, there is a lot of pressure to improve ease of use so we need to
keep that in mind through these changes.
Jeff
On 2010-12-01, at 6:02 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
On 1 Dec 2010, at 22:06, Thomas Watson wrote:
There have been various discussions about replacing our
framework console with something a bit more functional and
flexible like apache gogo [1]. At this point in the Indigo
release we do not plan to remove our own console for the Indigo
release. Instead we will do what ever is required to enable the
use of gogo on top of Equinox. We would like to use the
incubator to allow this effort to mature and then re-evaluate
the complete removal of our built-in framework console in a
later release. Lazar Kirchev from SAP has been doing various
experiments and investigations in this area. My hope is that
Lazar will soon be in a position to contribute this work to the
equinox incubator so that others can try it out on top of
Indigo.
Tom
[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=317827
One other advantage would be in slimming down Equinox by providing
the console in a separate bundle from the main OSGi runtime.
Alex
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
<<inline: graycol.gif>>
<<inline: ecblank.gif>>
_______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
