On 09/29/2016 06:37 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Alexey Kazakov" <alkazako(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Ilya Buziuk" <ibuziuk(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Aleksandar Kurtakov" >> <akurtako(a)redhat.com&gt;, "jbosstools-dev jbosstools-dev" >> <jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >> Cc: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Nick Boldt" >> <nboldt(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Leo Ufimtsev" >> <lufimtse(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Sent: Thursday, 29 September, 2016 4:33:00 PM >> Subject: Re: Do we still need Xulrunner in Devstudio? >> >> It looks like I missed some discussion here. So, I'm repeating my >> question, why would we like to remove Xulrunner and/or deprecate VPE? > > The discussion started from xulrunner being usable only in GTK2 env when > on RHEL 7 we support only GTK3. It would be really nice to not have > recommendations to use GTK2 for using VPE as it would cause issues for other > plugins. OK. So, removing VPE is not a solution for this anyway ;) Thanks. > >> Just want to understand if there is some real problem and our Xulrunner >> stuff blocks us to solve it or this is just for cleanness sake. >> >> Thanks. >> >> On 09/29/2016 03:28 AM, Ilya Buziuk wrote: >>> >>> Hi, Aleksandr >>> Alexey has already moved this discussion to jbosstools-dev. >>> >>> Unfortunately, I do not have Webkit POC ready to hand, but I think I >>> remember the approach. Basically, the WebKit based transformation was >>> done via SWT BrowserFunction[1] and the performance was much worse >>> in comparison with the DOM API. If you want to figure out how the >>> current Xulrunner based implementation work, you should probably start >>> with tests[2] that cover things like mapping between source jsf / jsp >>> tags and visual part via DOM API. However, I still want to put my 2 >>> cents in this discussion. >>> >>> Let's face the bullet - JSF is dying technology, and spending any time >>> on new development is simply nonsensical IMO. Even if eventually a >>> better WebKit based VPE will be created (which is doubtful because it >>> was developed by big team ~ 10 developers for a couple of years) it >>> will have very little value for both community and business. For now >>> the only request from the community was - "please, leave it as is". >>> >>> If SWT will drop GTK 2 support than we will have to deprecate it on >>> this Linux. But it worth mentioning that all Linux distros are just a >>> couple of percents of the tools user base and our target audience ~ 85 >>> - 90 % is Windows developers. For me it is also not clear why it is >>> important to deprecate it right now ? We already had this discussion >>> and decided not to do it in 2015, so I can not come up with a reason >>> why should it be done in 2016. Just to be clear, I am not against >>> deprecation, I am just saying that we should think twice before doing >>> it and get some agreement about Xulrunner future, so that we will not >>> be returning to this discussion again and again. >>> [1] >>> >>> http://help.eclipse.org/kepler/index.jsp?topic=%2Forg.eclipse.platform.do... >>> >>> <http://help.eclipse.org/kepler/index.jsp?topic=%2Forg.eclipse.platform.do... >>> [2] >>> >>> https://github.com/jbosstools/jbosstools-vpe/blob/master/tests/org.jboss.... >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov >>> <akurtako(a)redhat.com <mailto:akurtako@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Adding Max and Alexey (maybe we should move to the mailing list?) >>> and dropping Jeff to not spam him. >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: "Aleksandar Kurtakov" <akurtako(a)redhat.com >>> <mailto:akurtako@redhat.com>> >>> > To: "Ilya Buziuk" <ibuziuk(a)redhat.com >>> <mailto:ibuziuk@redhat.com>> >>> > Cc: "Nick Boldt" <nboldt(a)redhat.com <mailto:nboldt@redhat.com>>, >>> "Leo Ufimtsev" <lufimtse(a)redhat.com <mailto:lufimtse@redhat.com>>, >>> "Jeff Johnston" <jjohnstn(a)redhat.com <mailto:jjohnstn@redhat.com>> >>> > Sent: Thursday, 29 September, 2016 9:04:42 AM >>> > Subject: Re: Do we still need Xulrunner in Devstudio? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > > From: "Ilya Buziuk" <ibuziuk(a)redhat.com >>> <mailto:ibuziuk@redhat.com>> >>> > > To: "Aleksandar Kurtakov" <akurtako(a)redhat.com >>> <mailto:akurtako@redhat.com>> >>> > > Cc: "Nick Boldt" <nboldt(a)redhat.com >>> <mailto:nboldt@redhat.com>>, "Leo Ufimtsev" <lufimtse(a)redhat.com >>> <mailto:lufimtse@redhat.com>>, >>> > > "Jeff Johnston" <jjohnstn(a)redhat.com >>> <mailto:jjohnstn@redhat.com>> >>> > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 September, 2016 8:23:47 PM >>> > > Subject: Re: Do we still need Xulrunner in Devstudio? >>> > > >>> > > Basically, jsf tags can not be displayed as-is and be parsed >>> correctly in >>> > > browser like html, due to the fact that it is server side >>> technology. So, >>> > > the algorithm for VPE is the following: the content is >>> rendered and all >>> > > jsf tags are parsed through a set of templates via the native >>> DOM API which >>> > > is available only in particular older versions of XULRunner. >>> So, in order >>> > > to use Webkit or other engine and migrate all VPE features, >>> reimplementing >>> > > all of those temlpate transformations is required. Plus not to >>> forget the >>> > > performance thing - processing might take a long time (I think >>> we had some >>> > > WebKit POC but performance was just unacceptable). This is not >>> a trivial >>> > > task at all and I do believe that we have no resources for >>> doing it - VPE >>> > > component's code base is one of the biggest (if not the >>> biggest) across >>> > > tools. >>> > >>> > That's exactly the kind of info I was looking for. Can you point >>> me to the >>> > transformations used for the xulrunner? Sorry for being lazy but >>> it's >>> > foreing land for me so I would rather not lose time lurking >>> around. >>> > Do you have a pointer to the WebKit POC? It might be interested >>> to reach out >>> > to the desktop team (there is webkit developer there) with all >>> the info so >>> > maybe they can hint us how to achieve what's needed if latest >>> webkit doesn't >>> > fullfill the needs. >>> > >>> > > In a nutshell - after reimplementing there will be the same, >>> or less >>> > > powerful, VPE with more bugs and poor performance. >>> > >>> > That might be true now but you should think a bit further in >>> time. In the not >>> > so distant future (2018 release most probably, if not 2019 for >>> sure) SWT >>> > itself will drop support for running on GTK 2.x and that would be >>> > effectively the end of this plugin if no action taken. >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov >>> <akurtako(a)redhat.com <mailto:akurtako@redhat.com>> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > > > > From: "Ilya Buziuk" <ibuziuk(a)redhat.com >>> <mailto:ibuziuk@redhat.com>> >>> > > > > To: "Nick Boldt" <nboldt(a)redhat.com >>> <mailto:nboldt@redhat.com>> >>> > > > > Cc: "Aleksandar Kurtakov" <akurtako(a)redhat.com >>> <mailto:akurtako@redhat.com>>, "Leo Ufimtsev" < >>> > > > lufimtse(a)redhat.com <mailto:lufimtse@redhat.com>>, "Jeff >>> Johnston" >>> > > > > <jjohnstn(a)redhat.com <mailto:jjohnstn@redhat.com>> >>> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 September, 2016 7:19:24 PM >>> > > > > Subject: Re: Do we still need Xulrunner in Devstudio? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Actually, we planned to remove xulrunner and deprecate VPE >>> some time >>> > > > > ago >>> > > > > and leave only VPV as a WYSIWYG html editor. >>> > > > As someone not familiar with the topic I don't see xulrunner >>> and VPE >>> > > > deprecation that closely coupled. What is the reason for >>> that? What's >>> > > > preventing to achieve it with webkit? Do you extend SWT >>> Browser API >>> > > > somehow? >>> > > > Please give all the details you can think of so I can get >>> better >>> > > > understanding of the issue/reasons. >>> > > > >>> > > > > However, as soon as we gave a >>> > > > > shout out about this on tools.jboss.org >>> <http://tools.jboss.org> the first comment was: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Nice. The reason I used JBoss Tools was the Visual Editor >>> for JSF, >>> > > > > > especially for the Visual parts, which was not perfect >>> but was good >>> > > > enough >>> > > > > > to have it. Will you have alternatives for that ? [1] >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > It was decided that we need to slow down with this >>> process. I can not >>> > > > > say >>> > > > > if it is a high time for doing this assuming that some >>> people actually >>> > > > use >>> > > > > it. Furthermore, some people treat it as a killer feature >>> for JSF that >>> > > > only >>> > > > > one IDE is providing. So, we need to think twice before >>> doing it. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > [1] >>> http://tools.jboss.org/blog/2015-04-02-devstudio-8.1.0.GA- >>> <http://tools.jboss.org/blog/2015-04-02-devstudio-8.1.0.GA-> >>> > > > for-luna.html >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Nick Boldt >>> <nboldt(a)redhat.com <mailto:nboldt@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > On the Eclipse team call today, the question of why we >>> need Xulrunner >>> > > > > > was brought up again. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > As I understand it, the only reason we still include >>> Xulrunner is for >>> > > > > > the Visual Page Editor. But Alex pointed out today that >>> Xulrunner >>> > > > > > only >>> > > > > > works on GTK2, which means a user has to explicity >>> disable GTK3 in >>> > > > > > order for Xulrunner to be used, as these days GTK3 is >>> the default >>> > > > > > OOTB >>> > > > > > implementation on the platforms we support (Fedora >>> 24/25, RHEL7, >>> > > > > > etc.). >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > So... is it time to remove Xulrunner from the Devstudio >>> dependencies, >>> > > > > > if most people are not even seeing it used? >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Alex suggested it might be useful to set up a call to >>> discuss this in >>> > > > > > more depth. Is there a good time tomorrow or Friday you >>> guys would >>> > > > > > like to meet to discuss this, if it can't be resolved >>> asynchronously >>> > > > > > via email? >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Whatever we decide here, we should make sure we announce >>> this on the >>> > > > > > jbosstools-dev@ list. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > -- >>> > > > > > Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat >>> > > > > > Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio >>> > > > > > http://nick.divbyzero.com >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > -- >>> > > > Alexander Kurtakov >>> > > > Red Hat Eclipse team >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Alexander Kurtakov >>> > Red Hat Eclipse team >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> Alexander Kurtakov >>> Red Hat Eclipse team >>> >>> >>

Why wouldn't it be a solution? devstudio includes vpe. vpe depends on xulrunner. xulrunner needs GTK2. GTK2 on RHEL7 is not supported. Therefore devstudio rpm shouldn't include vpe/xulrunner/gtk2. QED. :D What if we provide two different install paths? a) rpm installs everything in devstudio except vpe/xulrunner (supported config) b) users who want vpe can then install it by hand from the devstudio *update site*, plus the 4 dependency RPMs, and enabling GTK3=0 to force Eclipse to run in unsupported GTK2 mode. I would also be open to the idea of building a quasi-supported ("Tech Preview") rh-eclipse 46-devstudio-vpe rpm, which provides the vpe/xulrunner and requires the 4 dependencies. It could maybe even enable GTK3=0 (?) on startup of Eclipse, provided it includes an eclipse.sh which would enable that property before starting the eclipse executable. This new rpm would of course require buy in from GSS and QE. Adding Len and Rick to cc:. N On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Alexey Kazakov <alkazako(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On 09/29/2016 06:37 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> From: "Alexey Kazakov" <alkazako(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: "Ilya Buziuk" <ibuziuk(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Aleksandar Kurtakov" >>> <akurtako(a)redhat.com&gt;, "jbosstools-dev jbosstools-dev" >>> <jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >>> Cc: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Nick Boldt" >>> <nboldt(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Leo Ufimtsev" >>> <lufimtse(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Sent: Thursday, 29 September, 2016 4:33:00 PM >>> Subject: Re: Do we still need Xulrunner in Devstudio? >>> >>> It looks like I missed some discussion here. So, I'm repeating my >>> question, why would we like to remove Xulrunner and/or deprecate VPE? >> >> The discussion started from xulrunner being usable only in GTK2 env when >> on RHEL 7 we support only GTK3. It would be really nice to not have >> recommendations to use GTK2 for using VPE as it would cause issues for other >> plugins. > > > OK. So, removing VPE is not a solution for this anyway ;) > > Thanks. > > >> >>> Just want to understand if there is some real problem and our Xulrunner >>> stuff blocks us to solve it or this is just for cleanness sake. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> On 09/29/2016 03:28 AM, Ilya Buziuk wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, Aleksandr >>>> Alexey has already moved this discussion to jbosstools-dev. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, I do not have Webkit POC ready to hand, but I think I >>>> remember the approach. Basically, the WebKit based transformation was >>>> done via SWT BrowserFunction[1] and the performance was much worse >>>> in comparison with the DOM API. If you want to figure out how the >>>> current Xulrunner based implementation work, you should probably start >>>> with tests[2] that cover things like mapping between source jsf / jsp >>>> tags and visual part via DOM API. However, I still want to put my 2 >>>> cents in this discussion. >>>> >>>> Let's face the bullet - JSF is dying technology, and spending any time >>>> on new development is simply nonsensical IMO. Even if eventually a >>>> better WebKit based VPE will be created (which is doubtful because it >>>> was developed by big team ~ 10 developers for a couple of years) it >>>> will have very little value for both community and business. For now >>>> the only request from the community was - "please, leave it as is". >>>> >>>> If SWT will drop GTK 2 support than we will have to deprecate it on >>>> this Linux. But it worth mentioning that all Linux distros are just a >>>> couple of percents of the tools user base and our target audience ~ 85 >>>> - 90 % is Windows developers. For me it is also not clear why it is >>>> important to deprecate it right now ? We already had this discussion >>>> and decided not to do it in 2015, so I can not come up with a reason >>>> why should it be done in 2016. Just to be clear, I am not against >>>> deprecation, I am just saying that we should think twice before doing >>>> it and get some agreement about Xulrunner future, so that we will not >>>> be returning to this discussion again and again. >>>> [1] >>>> >>>> http://help.eclipse.org/kepler/index.jsp?topic=%2Forg. eclipse.platform.doc.isv%2Freference%2Fapi%2Forg% 2Feclipse%2Fswt%2Fbrowser%2FBrowserFunction.html >>>> >>>> <http://help.eclipse.org/kepler/index.jsp?topic=%2Forg. eclipse.platform.doc.isv%2Freference%2Fapi%2Forg% 2Feclipse%2Fswt%2Fbrowser%2FBrowserFunction.html> >>>> [2] >>>> >>>> https://github.com/jbosstools/jbosstools-vpe/blob/master/ tests/org.jboss.tools.vpe.base.test/src/org/jboss/tools/ vpe/base/test/VpeTest.java#L340 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov >>>> <akurtako(a)redhat.com <mailto:akurtako@redhat.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Adding Max and Alexey (maybe we should move to the mailing list?) >>>> and dropping Jeff to not spam him. >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> > From: "Aleksandar Kurtakov" <akurtako(a)redhat.com >>>> <mailto:akurtako@redhat.com>> >>>> > To: "Ilya Buziuk" <ibuziuk(a)redhat.com >>>> <mailto:ibuziuk@redhat.com>> >>>> > Cc: "Nick Boldt" <nboldt(a)redhat.com <mailto:nboldt@redhat.com >>, >>>> "Leo Ufimtsev" <lufimtse(a)redhat.com <mailto:lufimtse@redhat.com >>, >>>> "Jeff Johnston" <jjohnstn(a)redhat.com <mailto:jjohnstn@redhat.com >> >>>> > Sent: Thursday, 29 September, 2016 9:04:42 AM >>>> > Subject: Re: Do we still need Xulrunner in Devstudio? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>>> > > From: "Ilya Buziuk" <ibuziuk(a)redhat.com >>>> <mailto:ibuziuk@redhat.com>> >>>> > > To: "Aleksandar Kurtakov" <akurtako(a)redhat.com >>>> <mailto:akurtako@redhat.com>> >>>> > > Cc: "Nick Boldt" <nboldt(a)redhat.com >>>> <mailto:nboldt@redhat.com>>, "Leo Ufimtsev" <lufimtse(a)redhat.com >>>> <mailto:lufimtse@redhat.com>>, >>>> > > "Jeff Johnston" <jjohnstn(a)redhat.com >>>> <mailto:jjohnstn@redhat.com>> >>>> > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 September, 2016 8:23:47 PM >>>> > > Subject: Re: Do we still need Xulrunner in Devstudio? >>>> > > >>>> > > Basically, jsf tags can not be displayed as-is and be parsed >>>> correctly in >>>> > > browser like html, due to the fact that it is server side >>>> technology. So, >>>> > > the algorithm for VPE is the following: the content is >>>> rendered and all >>>> > > jsf tags are parsed through a set of templates via the native >>>> DOM API which >>>> > > is available only in particular older versions of XULRunner. >>>> So, in order >>>> > > to use Webkit or other engine and migrate all VPE features, >>>> reimplementing >>>> > > all of those temlpate transformations is required. Plus not to >>>> forget the >>>> > > performance thing - processing might take a long time (I think >>>> we had some >>>> > > WebKit POC but performance was just unacceptable). This is not >>>> a trivial >>>> > > task at all and I do believe that we have no resources for >>>> doing it - VPE >>>> > > component's code base is one of the biggest (if not the >>>> biggest) across >>>> > > tools. >>>> > >>>> > That's exactly the kind of info I was looking for. Can you point >>>> me to the >>>> > transformations used for the xulrunner? Sorry for being lazy but >>>> it's >>>> > foreing land for me so I would rather not lose time lurking >>>> around. >>>> > Do you have a pointer to the WebKit POC? It might be interested >>>> to reach out >>>> > to the desktop team (there is webkit developer there) with all >>>> the info so >>>> > maybe they can hint us how to achieve what's needed if latest >>>> webkit doesn't >>>> > fullfill the needs. >>>> > >>>> > > In a nutshell - after reimplementing there will be the same, >>>> or less >>>> > > powerful, VPE with more bugs and poor performance. >>>> > >>>> > That might be true now but you should think a bit further in >>>> time. In the not >>>> > so distant future (2018 release most probably, if not 2019 for >>>> sure) SWT >>>> > itself will drop support for running on GTK 2.x and that would be >>>> > effectively the end of this plugin if no action taken. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov >>>> <akurtako(a)redhat.com <mailto:akurtako@redhat.com>> >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > ----- Original Message ----- >>>> > > > > From: "Ilya Buziuk" <ibuziuk(a)redhat.com >>>> <mailto:ibuziuk@redhat.com>> >>>> > > > > To: "Nick Boldt" <nboldt(a)redhat.com >>>> <mailto:nboldt@redhat.com>> >>>> > > > > Cc: "Aleksandar Kurtakov" <akurtako(a)redhat.com >>>> <mailto:akurtako@redhat.com>>, "Leo Ufimtsev" < >>>> > > > lufimtse(a)redhat.com <mailto:lufimtse@redhat.com>>, "Jeff >>>> Johnston" >>>> > > > > <jjohnstn(a)redhat.com <mailto:jjohnstn@redhat.com>> >>>> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 September, 2016 7:19:24 PM >>>> > > > > Subject: Re: Do we still need Xulrunner in Devstudio? >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Actually, we planned to remove xulrunner and deprecate VPE >>>> some time >>>> > > > > ago >>>> > > > > and leave only VPV as a WYSIWYG html editor. >>>> > > > As someone not familiar with the topic I don't see xulrunner >>>> and VPE >>>> > > > deprecation that closely coupled. What is the reason for >>>> that? What's >>>> > > > preventing to achieve it with webkit? Do you extend SWT >>>> Browser API >>>> > > > somehow? >>>> > > > Please give all the details you can think of so I can get >>>> better >>>> > > > understanding of the issue/reasons. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > > However, as soon as we gave a >>>> > > > > shout out about this on tools.jboss.org >>>> <http://tools.jboss.org> the first comment was: >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Nice. The reason I used JBoss Tools was the Visual Editor >>>> for JSF, >>>> > > > > > especially for the Visual parts, which was not perfect >>>> but was good >>>> > > > enough >>>> > > > > > to have it. Will you have alternatives for that ? [1] >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > It was decided that we need to slow down with this >>>> process. I can not >>>> > > > > say >>>> > > > > if it is a high time for doing this assuming that some >>>> people actually >>>> > > > use >>>> > > > > it. Furthermore, some people treat it as a killer feature >>>> for JSF that >>>> > > > only >>>> > > > > one IDE is providing. So, we need to think twice before >>>> doing it. >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > [1] >>>> http://tools.jboss.org/blog/2015-04-02-devstudio-8.1.0.GA- >>>> <http://tools.jboss.org/blog/2015-04-02-devstudio-8.1.0.GA-> >>>> > > > for-luna.html >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Nick Boldt >>>> <nboldt(a)redhat.com <mailto:nboldt@redhat.com>> wrote: >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > > On the Eclipse team call today, the question of why we >>>> need Xulrunner >>>> > > > > > was brought up again. >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > As I understand it, the only reason we still include >>>> Xulrunner is for >>>> > > > > > the Visual Page Editor. But Alex pointed out today that >>>> Xulrunner >>>> > > > > > only >>>> > > > > > works on GTK2, which means a user has to explicity >>>> disable GTK3 in >>>> > > > > > order for Xulrunner to be used, as these days GTK3 is >>>> the default >>>> > > > > > OOTB >>>> > > > > > implementation on the platforms we support (Fedora >>>> 24/25, RHEL7, >>>> > > > > > etc.). >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > So... is it time to remove Xulrunner from the Devstudio >>>> dependencies, >>>> > > > > > if most people are not even seeing it used? >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Alex suggested it might be useful to set up a call to >>>> discuss this in >>>> > > > > > more depth. Is there a good time tomorrow or Friday you >>>> guys would >>>> > > > > > like to meet to discuss this, if it can't be resolved >>>> asynchronously >>>> > > > > > via email? >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Whatever we decide here, we should make sure we announce >>>> this on the >>>> > > > > > jbosstools-dev@ list. >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > -- >>>> > > > > > Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat >>>> > > > > > Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio >>>> > > > > > http://nick.divbyzero.com >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > -- >>>> > > > Alexander Kurtakov >>>> > > > Red Hat Eclipse team >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Alexander Kurtakov >>>> > Red Hat Eclipse team >>>> > >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Alexander Kurtakov >>>> Red Hat Eclipse team >>>> >>>> >>> > -- Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio http://nick.divbyzero.com

On 29 Sep 2016, at 17:37, Nick Boldt wrote: > Why wouldn't it be a solution? before you guys get all trapped in VPE issues for the <10% of users please also remember that browsersim and cordovasim relies on JavaFX which afaik still is not available on RHEL and Fedora OpenJDK. Thus we already have cases where we got features we just can't support on RHEL and Fedora because the baseOS/VM's don't support the necessary features. And even if users installs Oracle JDK to work around this then at least last time I looked at it JavaFX had hard bindings to GTK2 too. Here is my suggestion: List the features that are non-supportable on Red Hat Linux desktop. Exclude or disable them by default in the RPM distro. Go look at the usage stats we added 1-2 years ago to track how much the various editors/simulators are used. Document it and review it for the next years major release train as a team and with PM being aware of the issues. /max http://about.me/maxandersen