Hi All,
Scratch the "non-jst" bit as there are jst and wst bits mixed together.
While reviewing this, I did come up with one more supporting factor for this
structure. Since we are using a generic server type for now, the jst and
wst parts cannot be separated into separate plugins like other vendors do.
I keep referring to structure and if that is not what you mean, please let
me know.
Take care,
Jeremy
On 2/13/07, Jeremy Whitlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Raj,
That makes sense to me but I did have a method to my madness. The
idea was that OpenEJB plugins will be single entities for simplicity. The
WTP support would be in one plugin while the other features, not yet decided
upon of course, would be in their own plugin structures. This is an initial
"offering" to get us started. I do not have a problem refactoring to make
it more Eclipse-like. Let's see what everyone else thinks. Besides, right
now there is only one reference to a non-jst extension point and it would be
crazy to create an extra plugin just for the server icon.
Take care,
Jeremy
On 2/13/07, Raj Saini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> I was looking at the existing server plugins in Eclipse WTP. Should we
> not have the similar structure as existing plugins?
>
> Also, existing plugins in eclipse are under JST. Should we follow the
> same convention for naming OpenEJB eclipse plugin?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Raj
>
