Acceleo and EMF Compare will both be participating in the Mars release
train. The offset for both projects is +2.
There is not much to be said as far as release plans are concerned yet,
they will be amended in the near future with more information :
Acceleo participates as the 3.6.0 release
Hi,
PTP will be participating in the Mars simultaneous release. The offset for PTP
will be +1 for the remote component and +3 for the remainder of PTP (including
Photran).
The release record is here:
https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/tools.ptp/releases/9.0.0
Thanks,
Greg
This is to let you know that WindowBuilder will participate in the Mars
release. We will be +2.
Release Record:
https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/tools.windowbuilder/releases/1.8.0
___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
Hi all,
as some of the new GEF4 bundles we want to include with Mars specify javafx
package imports (so far without version constraints), I was wondering what
general policy we want to follow to ensure such kind of bundles can be properly
resolved. Should we rely on the e(fx)clipse runtime
We have not announced but we will :-) if allowed join Mars!
An official request will follow in soon!
Tom
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 18.08.2014 um 18:57 schrieb Alexander Nyßen alexander.nys...@itemis.de:
Hi all,
as some of the new GEF4 bundles we want to include with Mars specify
Naive question...
How is JavaFX distributed? Is it a separate download, or is it included
as part of a JRE?
Wayne
On 18/08/14 12:57 PM, Alexander Nyßen wrote:
Hi all,
as some of the new GEF4 bundles we want to include with Mars specify
javafx package imports (so far without version
Part of oraclejdk/openjdk 7u8 on all platforms. JavaFX2 for win32 was an extra
download but anyone really doing fx uses at least jdk7 or even jdk8.
Tom
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 18.08.2014 um 20:42 schrieb Wayne Beaton wa...@eclipse.org:
Naive question...
How is JavaFX distributed?
Let me add that the 'nasty' thing about it is that in case of Java7, all of it
(jfxrt.jar) is by default invisible to the bundle classloader, while for Java8
this is the case for the JavaFX-SWT-integration (jfxswt.jar), which is required
by GEF4 as well.
Cheers
Alexander
Am 18.08.2014 um
And, in the mean time, it seems your current contribution won't
aggregate (and mentions missing things somehow related to fx. Can you
disable those features for now?
For the record, if the required project did not participate, you can
include their features in yours, but, only from their
Where can you observe this? At
https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/simrel.mars.runaggregator/ build #26 I
can only see that the Papyrus contribution cannot be resolved...
Cheers
Alexander
Am 18.08.2014 um 21:22 schrieb David M Williams david_willi...@us.ibm.com:
And, in the mean time, it
a) e(fx)clipse just released 1.0
b) the bundles required only depend on equinox = Luna
So no matter if we (efxclipse) are on the Mars release GEF4 should be fine!
Tom
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 18.08.2014 um 21:22 schrieb David M Williams david_willi...@us.ibm.com:
And, in the mean
In my local build, I disabled Papyrus, and then saw the failure. I've
committed that temporary disabling of Papyrus, so should see in the the
next build (unless my local version just has the problem, which itself
would be odd). Or, you can try it yourself with b3 aggregator if you sync
up.
Would that mean I have to specify dependencies to e(fx)clipse or would b3
resolve this implicitly? Up to now, my bundles only specify javafx package
imports (including imports to javafx.embed.swt)...
Cheers
Alexander
Am 18.08.2014 um 21:40 schrieb Tom Schindl tom.schi...@bestsolution.at:
a)
I temporarily disabled all GEF4 features that (directly or indirectly) depend
on JavaFX. I do not know what is the intended offset of e(fx)clipse, but unless
we find out how to provide these dependencies (i.e. jfxrt.jar in case of Java7,
jfxswt.jar in case of Java8) to B3 directly (i.e.
It was probably a mis-match in Java Levels. I noticed from log that Java 6
was still being used, and get the feeling from earlier comments that Java
7 is required. I moved up to Java 7 and it seems to be doing better.
There's no particular reason to stay at Java 7, except that I do want to
use
That's a really good question. It's easier as an external product since we
already redist the Oracle VM and kinda cheat a little to get these jar files
put into the right spot. I'm not sure how that's possible with the Eclipse IP
rules.
And, at the end if the day, these jar files only exist in
Hi Lars,
Am 18.08.2014 um 11:13 schrieb Lars Vogel lars.vo...@gmail.com:
Hi Marcel,
I assume the project is based on the logger GSoC project.
Can you point to the documentation and source for this remote logger plug-in.
the eclipse error reporting prototype is hosted in recommenders
17 matches
Mail list logo
