As a first step, I would suggest the immediate creation of a common.core 
bundle which can hold any and all common utilities that may be of use to 
multiple extenders. Anything for importing projects, job utilities, xml 
mementos, resource utilities, string utilities (maybe, if generic 
enough), etc.

Could even just let the existing "old" bundles depend on this common.core and just expose the packages
and things could migrate incrementally  - would that be feasible ?

> +1 for the concept, but I don't think "standard eclipse distributions" is specific enough - that stuff will drag in *alot* of dependencies. - Max

I agree. We could split it up based on 'product', like GEF / WTP / etc.  One plugin for integration with each major product. I do think this is overkill for now, though. I think limiting ourselves to what comes with a plain eclipse install (not bundle, just the standard raw) + wtp.  This includes basically eclipse platform, emf, gef,  maybe dtp, and wtp. 

In general, I would argue that 'common' should be similar to 'core' from 
2006 (ha!) with utility classes, utility methods, functionality that is 
very common and ALL plugins could find some reason to use. As the base 
of our entire platform, it needs to be well-organized, so others can add 
useful stuff to them.

I'm going to list problems here as I find them. So let's do this.

1) org.jboss.tools.common contains LOTS of UI code. This is a big 
problem and means any plugin that depends on o.j.t.common will be unable 
to resolve without eclipse ui bundles available. Currently, almost all 
common plugins depend on o.j.t.common, so you could say the entire 
component is a UI component.

2) org.jboss.tools.common.base.test seems to be a test plugin inside the 
common/plugins folder (?)

3) el.core and el.ui seem fine. el.ui depends on common.model.ui, so if 
common were ever split into two, it's not clear where el.ui and el.core 
would fit (higher level or lower level). It would definitely need to be 
higher than common.model.

4) common.gef seems fully featured and depended on by many components. 
It provides no plugin.xml and no activator and is merely useful for 
other extenders. THis definitely fits in common.

5) common.jdt / common.jdt.ui: The plugins seem pretty empty, but 
they're currently not something others would extend or use. This is 
confusing. As I imagine a 'common' plugin, the code in it would be used 
or extended by others.  Also, the plugin by its name alone implies 
o.j.t.common + jdt dependency (to separate out bundles which require jdt 
and those which don't). But in reality, o.j.t.common also requires jdt.  
I would move this plugin into the 'higher' category.

6) common.jdt.debug.core/ui: Very small plugin which implements a 
feature. I would suggest this get merged with o.j.t.c.jdt/jdt.ui and 
given a better name. Then there would be two jdt-related features 
together. Since both are only features, and not code used by others, we 
might be able to cut 4 plugins down into 1.

7) meta.ui:  I'm not familiar with this plugin at all, but judging by 
the two tree images, it is not extended or used by any other plugins. I 
believe this would be a candidate for a higher-level 'common' rather 
than a lower-level one others depend on.

8) common.model.*: I am pretty confused by the separation of 
common.model.core vs common.model.ui, since it seems both use UI 
heavily. Makes it difficult to tell why one should be labeled UI and the 
otehr should not.

9) common.mylyn: Completely disconnected from anything 'common' really. 
Similar to the jdt and jdt.debug features.

10) common.projecttemplates: used by struts and jst, no references to 
other common code except o.j.t.common. Probably safe to stay in 'low 
level' common.

11) common.resref.core/ui:  I can see no reason for these two plugins to 
be separate. The only non-common plugins that depend on these two at all 
is VPE, but VPE depends on huge portions of the entire common module, so 
having these separated out is very strange and not useful at all 
really.  I suggest combining resref.core in to org.jboss.tools.common 
and resref.ui in to org.jboss.tools.common.model.ui

12) common.text.*:  These seem fine. I am not familiar with them but it 
seems huge numbers of plugins consume it, so it seems common.

13) org.jboss.tools.common.ui:  I honestly cannot tell the difference 
between this plugin and o.j.t.common. They both have UI methods and both 
seem to be dealing with the same thing. Why? Where is the split between 
the two?

14) common.validation / verification:  Not really familiar with these 
two at all,

So overall problems seem to be no clear lines between core/ui plugins. I 
feel there needs to be a split between common things everyone wants to 
extend, and common things that are almost full features built with the 
common pieces.

As a first step, I would suggest the immediate creation of a common.core 
bundle which can hold any and all common utilities that may be of use to 
multiple extenders. Anything for importing projects, job utilities, xml 
mementos, resource utilities, string utilities (maybe, if generic 
enough), etc.

I would expect the scope of this bundle (what it could depend on) would 
be limited to anything that comes in the jee prepackaged eclipse. No 
utilities that interface with anything other than standard eclipse 
distributions.

In WTP, their plugins are actually separated even further. They have 
some bundles providing functionality, and then a new bundle for 
integration of the first with JDT. I don't think we really need 
separation between java and not java at this point. If we ever get that 
gigantic, maybe we can split common.core again ;)

 From there we can start to untangle what's left inside of common.

On 08/16/2012 02:07 AM, Denis Golovin wrote:

On 08/15/2012 10:18 AM, Alexey Kazakov wrote:

On 08/15/2012 01:12 AM, Rob Stryker wrote:

But there are also a wide array of plugins that do not seem to have
any links, or very few. resref.core and resref.ui seem to have only
one link to vpe. And the entire group of plugins in the upper left
corner have no obvious links at all. o.j.t.c.j.debug.core/ui seem to
have no links in this new image, AND no links in the previous image of
within common only.
`

Some plugins such as o.j.t.c.j.debug.core/ui probably should be removed
at all. They were used in struts debugger which we removed a few years ago.

How about several others:
o.j.t.c.verification*
o.j.t.struts*
o.j.t.jst.web.tiles*

they are here for years without any significant changes

Denis

capabilities and mylyn seem to have no obvious links to anything
inside common or outside of it. Very strange indeed.

Mylyn is a small independent and standalone plugin which was placed in
common because we didn't find a better place for it. And it's so small
that it didn't deserve its own module.
_______________________________________________
jbosstools-dev mailing list
jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

_______________________________________________
jbosstools-dev mailing list
jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

_______________________________________________
jbosstools-dev mailing list
jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev