[jbosstools-dev] Do we still need Xulrunner in Devstudio?
Rick Wagner
rwagner at redhat.com
Thu Sep 29 12:08:14 EDT 2016
CEE is fine with anything that gives our customers a usable end result.
Thanks,
Rick
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Nick Boldt <nboldt at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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 at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 09/29/2016 06:37 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>
> >>> From: "Alexey Kazakov" <alkazako at redhat.com>
> >>> To: "Ilya Buziuk" <ibuziuk at redhat.com>, "Aleksandar Kurtakov"
> >>> <akurtako at redhat.com>, "jbosstools-dev jbosstools-dev"
> >>> <jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> >>> Cc: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <manderse at redhat.com>, "Nick Boldt"
> >>> <nboldt at redhat.com>, "Leo Ufimtsev"
> >>> <lufimtse at redhat.com>
> >>> 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 at redhat.com <mailto:akurtako at 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 at redhat.com
> >>>> <mailto:akurtako at redhat.com>>
> >>>> > To: "Ilya Buziuk" <ibuziuk at redhat.com
> >>>> <mailto:ibuziuk at redhat.com>>
> >>>> > Cc: "Nick Boldt" <nboldt at redhat.com <mailto:nboldt at redhat.com
> >>,
> >>>> "Leo Ufimtsev" <lufimtse at redhat.com <mailto:lufimtse at redhat.com
> >>,
> >>>> "Jeff Johnston" <jjohnstn at redhat.com <mailto:jjohnstn at 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 at redhat.com
> >>>> <mailto:ibuziuk at redhat.com>>
> >>>> > > To: "Aleksandar Kurtakov" <akurtako at redhat.com
> >>>> <mailto:akurtako at redhat.com>>
> >>>> > > Cc: "Nick Boldt" <nboldt at redhat.com
> >>>> <mailto:nboldt at redhat.com>>, "Leo Ufimtsev" <lufimtse at redhat.com
> >>>> <mailto:lufimtse at redhat.com>>,
> >>>> > > "Jeff Johnston" <jjohnstn at redhat.com
> >>>> <mailto:jjohnstn at 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 at redhat.com <mailto:akurtako at redhat.com>>
> >>>> > > wrote:
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> > > > > From: "Ilya Buziuk" <ibuziuk at redhat.com
> >>>> <mailto:ibuziuk at redhat.com>>
> >>>> > > > > To: "Nick Boldt" <nboldt at redhat.com
> >>>> <mailto:nboldt at redhat.com>>
> >>>> > > > > Cc: "Aleksandar Kurtakov" <akurtako at redhat.com
> >>>> <mailto:akurtako at redhat.com>>, "Leo Ufimtsev" <
> >>>> > > > lufimtse at redhat.com <mailto:lufimtse at redhat.com>>, "Jeff
> >>>> Johnston"
> >>>> > > > > <jjohnstn at redhat.com <mailto:jjohnstn at 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 at redhat.com <mailto:nboldt at 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbosstools-dev/attachments/20160929/7c1ed615/attachment-0001.html
More information about the jbosstools-dev
mailing list