[udig-devel] Re: [udig-users] uDig 1.1 RC14 available FOR TESTING

[Jesse Eichar]

Well don't start celebrating yet.  There is testing to be done.

Jesse

Le 11-Feb-08 à 12:24 PM, andrea antonello a écrit :

> Standing ovation for you Jesse!
>
>> So I've been continuing to work on the SDK.  The goal is to have a
>> single SDK for all platforms and which can be used as the target
>> platform for but developement and release of custom applications.
>>
>> Jody is testing one of the latest attempts as we speak.  I'm also
>> working on making a tutorial for setting up... wait for it...
>> Automated builds based on uDig :).
>
> Brrr... sounds too beautyfull to be real :)
>
> Andrea
>
>
>
>>
>> Jesse
>>
>> Le 9-Feb-08 à 12:53 AM, Dave S-B a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> I think that, if I'm developing plugins to be deployed in the uDig
>>> platform, then the easiest way of working is with a full uDig
>>> platform as my target (so, an SDK with all the platform plugins). As
>>> you say, managing plugin versions is an issue, so it's easier to
>>> work with a full target and know that the plugin you're writing will
>>> have all the right uDig dependencies when it gets deployed.
>>>
>>> If  I'm developing an RCP application, then I'd prefer to just add
>>> uDig plugins to my own chosen base platform and have the
>>> responsibility of making sure that the versions of plugins which
>>> uDig is dependant on are compatible. That way I should be able to
>>> choose to use newer platform plugin versions, so long as they are
>>> backwards-compatible with the ones uDig needs.
>>>
>>> I expect you're right about beginning users - they would have to
>>> have a compatible base platform before adding the uDig plugins. With
>>> the existing SDK, I can do both of the options above by adding in
>>> the uDig SDK to my base RCP platform then selectively checking/un-
>>> checking platform plugins in either the uDig SDK or the RCP
>>> platform. It's not fun to do, but you only have to do it once! I'm
>>> not sure there's any way round it though...
>>>
>>> andrea antonello wrote:
>>>> I don't think it is a great idea to have an sdk to be added to your
>>>> target platform, I prefer the version that IS the target  
>>>> platform. If
>>>> the versions are not exactly in sync, there are huge maintenance
>>>> nightmares. This is the reason I stopped exporting from the svn
>>>> version of udig. I was using my own eclipse version and keeping it
>>>> always uptodate and there has been lots of big spaghetti incidents.
>>>> Beginning users will experience troubles.
>>>>
>>>> I think the sdk should have a ruling version of the used libraries.
>>>> We
>>>> of JGrass already have some extra eclipse plugins we need because  
>>>> of
>>>> the console stuff and I have to be very carefull in keeping
>>>> everything
>>>> in sync.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Ciao
>>>> Andrea
>>>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig)
>>> http://udig.refractions.net
>>> http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig)
>> http://udig.refractions.net
>> http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel
>>
> _______________________________________________
> User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig)
> http://udig.refractions.net
> http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel