Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:00:47 -0700 From: Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Cc: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org> Subject: Eclipse as part of the ports/java tree? [Was freebsd eclipse plugins & mailing list] Message-ID: <200508261100.47550.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20050826050051.GA49001@misty.eyesbeyond.com> References: <200508251303.59453.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> <20050826033743.GC25822@soaustin.net> <20050826050051.GA49001@misty.eyesbeyond.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 25 August 2005 22:00, the author Greg Lewis contributed to the dialogue on what was originally Re: freebsd eclipse plugins & mailing list: but now Eclipse as part of the ports/java tree? [Was freebsd eclipse plugins & mailing list] >On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 10:37:43PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 03:48:04PM -0600, Greg Lewis wrote: >> > I'd personally like to see eclipse and all of its plugins removed from >> > the java category and placed into devel. For example, I find it >> > ridiculous that the phpeclipse port is in the Java category. >> >> Speaking as both a portmgr and a bugmeister, I think the java category >> has been a failure. What happens is that people see a 'java' ports >> category and then assume that reports about bugs in any Java port should >> go to the Java GNATS category (rather than 'ports'). In particular, >> these PRs then get missed by portsmon. As well, as you mention, the java >> category departs from the existing usage in 'devel' and other places. >> >> I think TRT is to move everything out of Java that's not actually a JDK >> or JRE. And maybe even the things that are :-) >> >> What do other people think? > >I essentially agree. Its somewhat persuasive to say that the top level >java category can go altogether. No other languages get this special >treatment, and its difficult to really make the argument for Java other >than inertia and the fact that the devel category is already huge. At >the very least, there are many ports in the category that can obviously >be moved -- basically everything that is only in the category because >its written in Java. Other ports which are related to the JVM or directly >to the Java language I could see staying if the category remains (e.g. >openjit, jmp, jikes, sablevm, jdk15-doc, etc.). Obviously the JDK/JRE >ports stay if the category stays. > >Maybe moving all the low hanging fruit (the ones which are only there >because they are written in Java) would be a good first step? I am inclined to agree that eclipse does not "belong" in ports/java. Neither does iit belong in "devel" or "languages". In view of the huge number of eclipse plugins and, nore importantly, the mushrooming significance of eclipse, to everyone including the freebsd community, I would like to suggest we have /ports/eclipse. Here are my basic reasons: 1. The huge range of significant plugins (392 last count) which are dependent upon the the eclipse IDE. In my view, and for the good of the platform, we need to make these available to freebsd users in a form that fits into the freebsd ports collection. If that means changes to the ports collection schema I see no objection. The long term interest of the platform is much more significant thn the current ports collection schema. Here are the major categories and the number of plugins within each category: Application Management (8) Application Server (9) Code Management (20) Database (24) Deployment (5) Documentation (8) Editor (30) Entertainment (6) Graphics (3) IDE (21) J2EE Development Platform (15) J2ME (4) Languages (19) Modeling (14) Network (4) Other (14) Profiling (7) Rich Client Applications (7) SCM (2) Source Code Analyzer (16) Team Development (20) Testing (23) Tools (57) UI (14) UML (11) Web (21) Web Services (10) XML (10) 2. That in line with current development and application thinking the implications and practice of the eclipse EDI framework cuts right across the current heirarchical divisions of the freebsd port tree which was itself created when the application and development environment was founded on an entirely different set of system and application constraints. 3. We are living in a different era and the traditional divisions do not apply to the eclipse framework. Can we not, as a platform, welcome that change by making appropriate changes to our ports schema? 4. As you can see by examining Eclipse and by careful study of eclipse and eclipse related websites it is not just an EDI it is also a multi application framework so it does not "belong" in anything other than its own place in the ports tree. 5. I can see great potential for a number of freebsd specific eclipse plugins (including a combined freebsd system management and help tool providing an integrated and automated sysadmin functionalities). 6. If we do not grasp the opportunity we now have to make the changes needed to accomodate eclipse and any similar generic combined Application/EDI frameworks then freebsd will suffer. It will certainly not be harmed by taking the steps necessary to incorporate into its ports collection. 7. There are substantial advantages when managing an eclipse development environment on the freebsd platform to having the plugins installed from the ports tree rather than via individual user accounts which could lead to individual team members loading different versions of plugins into their own user workspace. We need to have the plugins organized in the ports tree. That means 392 plugins - There can be no doubt that eclipse needs its own place in the freebsd ports hierarchy as well as its own mailing list for the good of the freebsd community. The combination of these two initiatives may attract new devotees to freebsd and cannot do us any harm. I do not believe we will act responsibly by leaving things as they are or failing to grasp the new opportunities. david david -- 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200508261100.47550.vizion>