One more note, I do think we should change the id/packages from org.apache.openejb.eclipse.wtp to something more Eclipse/WTP like. ServiceMix does this same thing:
http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/extending-eclipse-wtp-to-support-jbi.html Is this what you mean or are you talking about other changes? Take care, Jeremy On 2/14/07, Jeremy Whitlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+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 > >> > > > >
