ECF is lowlevel protocol stuff. I wouldn't implement a JDBC connection on
it.
...and I actually cannot see what usecase there is for making unified
connection
framework that crosses all those different technologies...what is the
point ?
It is completely different user interaction scenarioes...
-max
John Graham 写道:
>> Where?
>>
>
> Since Brian Fitz from DTP started that page, I'd contact him on the DTP
> newsgroup or dtp-dev(a)eclipse.org and he can provide further meeting info
> as necessary.
>
>
>> ...and who else besides DTP does "connections" ?
>>
>
> There's the server connections in WTP, and the DTP/WTP connections don't
> know about each other. Likewise, DSDP has connections to "remote
> systems," TPTP has connections to debug/monitor targets, the platform
> has connections to source control....
>
> Ultimately it would be nice if Eclipse had one notion of "connection"
> typed based on what the endpoint is. Tools could then use these
> connections in interesting ways.
>
> -- John
>
A unified connection framework ? but we know that there is ECF now .
what's the different between ECF and the "Unified Connection Framework"?
> On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 22:54 +0200, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:21:00 +0200, John Graham <jgraham(a)redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As anyone who has built using a number of Eclipse projects knows,
>>> connectivity is one fragmented bag of breakage. It hurts us indirectly
>>> in JBT because of the DTP/WTP fragmentation, and there's more around
>>> useful tools elsewhere that are hard to integrate.
>>>
>>> Anyone interested in this area is encouraged to participate in these
>>> E4
>>> discussions.
>>>
>> Where?
>>
>> ...and who else besides DTP does "connections" ?
>>
>> -max
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Soa-tools-list mailing list
> Soa-tools-list(a)redhat.com
>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/soa-tools-list
>