[jbosstools-dev] Who uses .target file? Alternative suggestion

[Denis Golovin]

On 03/15/2012 09:39 AM, Rob Cernich wrote:
> I'll just clarify my requirements/use case, just so there's no ambiguity:
> 1. Install Eclipse (plugin development, JEE, classic, whatever; knowing I need PDE).
This step needs only SDK installed and target platform provides all 
requirements to compile against. But in current state if you also need 
sources, it is DIY.
> 2. Set target platform.
> 3. Check out a JBT project (e.g. m2e)
> 4. It compiles.
> 5. I can run and debug.
>
> Currently, step 4 fails because the target does not include JBoss features/plugins.  Setting up a manual target fails because test plugins do not reside in a repository.
>
> These have all been discussed at length.  I just wanted to summarize my wants (obviously, there is no need since I'm already developing :) ).
>
> Best,
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> TODAY:
>>
>> .target files list all the IUs (feature and plugin) and the "target
>> platform sites" are generated from that listing via XSLT transform to
>> p2.mirror script (uses: maven, ant, xslt). Ant script also provides
>> round-tripping in that the generated site is used to update the
>> .target
>> files w/ the new versions of IUs.
>>
>> FUTURE:
>>
>> .target files list only top-level "virtual" features, which can be
>> maintained w/ no effort - file never changes unless the URL of the TP
>> site changes (eg., moving from SR0 to SR1 to SR2) or new "virtual"
>> features need to be added (eg., new collections of features added
>> when a
>> new component is added or a new dependency stack is needed, like when
>> we
>> had to add git).
>>
>> "target platform sites" are generated using feature.xml + nearly
>> empty
>> site.xml to define the collections of features/plugins for the site.
>> Maintenance can be done the same way that other component / aggregate
>> sites are done AND we introduce the notion of "ranges of supported
>> IUs"
>> AND the idea of being able to combine smaller mini-TPs into larger
>> ones,
>> rather than just having one big TP for JBT and another for JBDS.
>>
>> N
>>
>> On 03/15/2012 12:22 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>>> Okey, so after reading/hearing about all the concerns I think i
>>> might have an answer.
>>>
>>> Nick/Mistria's concern is that they want to build updatesites
>>> easily and claim
>>> building it from .target file is too much overhead, but i'm not
>>> sure why that is.
>>>
>>> My guess is the format of the file is problematic or !?
>>>
>>> But afaik they want to build from feature+site.xml instead.
>>>
>>> And Denis/Rob/Me would like to have a .target file for various
>>> reasons (deterministic,
>>> reproducibility and ease of use for target platform in PDE).
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus my suggestion is:
>>>
>>> 1) feature/site.xml is used for building the TP updatesites AND for
>>> creating matching .target file.
>>>
>>> 2) This .target file gets committed and version into what is today
>>> called targetplatform (if multiple target platforms it should be
>>> release under different name/versions)
>>>
>>> Now both sides are happy.
>>>
>>> Only two concerns I can see right now is:
>>>
>>> A) #1 above must not result in additional "virtual" features being
>>> present in the updatesites - whatever features used to define the
>>> TP is purely an implementation detail. Is that doable?
>>>
>>> B) the feature.xml/site.xml is just an ease of use - the .target
>>> file used in #2 is still the thing that should be used for
>>> limiting the versions so p2/tycho is deterministic.
>>>
>>> Makes sense?
>>>
>>> Complaints/other ideas?
>>>
>>> /max
>>>
>> --
>> Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat
>> Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools&  Dev Studio
>> http://nick.divbyzero.com
>>
> _______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev