+1 On 2/14/07, Raj Saini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, let us wait for the opinion of more learned and wise people here :-) . Thanks, Raj Jeremy Whitlock 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 >> >
