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

[andrea antonello]

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

Is the version in the download folder the one to test?
I could also test.

Andrea



>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig)
> http://udig.refractions.net
> http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel
>