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
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
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
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
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
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:
they are here for years without any significant changes
>> 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 mailing list