Eclipse as part of the ports/java tree? [Was freebsd eclipse plugins & mailing list]

[Vizion]

On Tuesday 30 August 2005 08:26,  the author Herve Quiroz contributed to the 
dialogue on-
 Re: Eclipse as part of the ports/java tree? [Was freebsd eclipse plugins & 
mailing list]: 

I have replied to part of your contribution immediately - which seems to me to 
hold the nub of the issue. As you seem unwilling to discuss the issues on 
freebsd-eclipse I have responded here and posted the text on freebsd-eclipse.
\
------------------------------------------

>David,
>
>I pretty much agree with all that Greg already said but still there are
>some facts I think you should be aware of if you actually wish to
>improve eclipse support in the ports tree...
<snip>
I am replying to part of your response because I think you have a great 
musunderstanding.
>I don't think you will get much attention from other commiters if you
>introduce things as "the one true approach" compared to the "suboptimal
>fashion" that is, by your word, the current state of the ports system.
>
Please do NOT put words the words of others  in my mouth.
"suboptimal" was not my description but a description given by Greg to the 
current state of affairs. I happen to agree with him but it is a committer 
who believes that to be the case. So please do not cast me in the role of an 
outsider decrying the work of vituous committers. I very much appreciate what 
you guys do which is done very well (even if I do hold to the view that the 
freebsd policies (which determine what should be done) are fast becoming out 
of date and in consequence freebsd is in danger of losing its pre-eminent 
place to linux. To my mind that would be a great loss).
>Let's rather discuss the real motive here: improve Eclipse plugin
>support in the ports tree. 

It is not justabout  improving the support it is about improving convenience 
and accessibility. Perhaps it could be solved by writing an eclipse plugin 
for freebsd users which accessed the freebsd ports tree and pulled the 
plugins directly from the tree and installed them? In that way the freebsd 
ports tree would then have only to store the plugins themselves. This might 
be the way to go. In fact taking it one stage further such a plugin would 
mean that eclipse could be used to develop a global freebsd port access and 
installation tool. Now that is something worth thinking about! 

My general question is would there be real benefits from seperating the data 
storage and its internal structures (the ports tree itself), from the gui 
(which could use metadata to present information in the form required by the 
user about the data and assist the end user to select manage, select, upfate 
and install ports)  and processes which implement user instructions.  

I sometimes wonder the excellent ports tree system appears, by comparison with 
some recent approaches, not to have benefited from an access makeover. 
However good the  product I wonder whether we need to give more consideration 
to useability. An all bells and whistles  web/database driven front end 
interface which enables the end user to organize information about the 
content is an ideal dream. 

Getting someone to give the time to do the work would be the challenge. 

>Again, it has nothing to do with the 
>greatness of Eclipse nor the personal feelings of commiters towards
>Eclipse. In the later case, I would probably already have done some "cvs
>remove" on /usr/ports/java/eclipse a long time ago. :-)

Perhaps freebsd committers have had too much on their plate to be other than 
reactive. Certainly we are behind the curve on this one by comparison with 
Linux and that is worrying. Especially as the eclipse team only took the 
initiative to work with linux and ignored freebsd. That is starting to change 
thanks to the efforts of a few freebsd eclipse users and committers.

>
>Together with the freebsd-java community we have been working on
>refactoring the Java subsystem for years so that it would provide *us*
>the support *we* needed (that is, not only to attract more developpers
>to FreeBSD from Linux). It took quite some time and some lengthy
>dicsussions to get our bsd.java.mk subsystem added to the tree and we
>are speaking of more than 300 Java ports here. So unless we manage to
>use a similar apporach for Eclipse as for jdictionary, you will probably
>end up battling a long time, advocating for a rework of the whole ports
>tree when 20 plugins ports are indeed concerned.

I do not know where you get the idea of 20 plugin ports from. There are 
currently twenty categories of eclipse plugins and 291 plugins. The estimate 
is that  will be around 600 plugins within a year from now. Are you not sure 
that the scale of takeup, the volume of development in eclipse  (and possibly 
its significance), and its potential to contribute to the advancement of 
freebsd has been underestimated  within the freebsd "meritocracy". 

Will you please refrain from suggesting that I am advocating a rework of the 
ports tree? I have no way of knowing if or why any reworking is needed. It 
seems to me that that is matter for those who control the ports tree to 
decide. I fo not know how it works. My concern is to ensure that freebsd 
benefits from developments in the wider community and builds upon is assets. 
This discussion has taken me froma position of believing that freebsd has the 
tools we need to one where I have started to worry whether our assets 
(including the ports tree) have been engineered in a that has made data so 
inextricably interwoven with process that resource adaptability is now 
severely compromised.   

Fo you not agree that worry is reinforced when members of the committer 
community argue against such the simple concept I have proposed to deal with 
almost 300 eclipse plugins on the grounds that it implies a reworking of the 
ports tree? To be fair Greg has suggested that my proposal could be adopted 
by using what he labelled as a "virtual" solution that has been used 
elsewhere. From the way he put it forward I drew the implication that there 
would be a knee jerk reaction against the idea. 

I am now faced with the question is the ports tree as inflexible as some 
people suggest or are some members of our meritocracy more inflexible than 
the freebsd assets? 



>

-- 
40 yrs navigating and computing in blue waters.
English Owner & Captain of British Registered 60' bluewater Ketch S/V Taurus.
 Currently in San Diego, CA. Sailing bound for Europe via Panama Canal after 
completing engineroom refit.