Simple usecase: assemble an Eclipse product using simple scripts, just dumping bundles into the plugins dir.
This used to work with 3.3 - with 3.5 it's broken: my application doesn't start as the app plugin is not found.
Question: what's the easiest way to fix that? This seems to be the only pain in the whole upgrade process for me.
Attempts:
I guess this is a no-no for P2: it maintains the bundles.info file instead, which is probably very smart.. a bit too smart for me.
Some ideas I had:
can I just skip P2 altogether and get back to plain old, simple -dirty- discovery mechanism?
can I set up plugins dir as a 'watched directory'
looks like I need to use the p2.reconciler for that.. oh wait, it's deprecated already :-( bug 251561.. (thanks VonC for the pointer)
can this old setting in the config.ini still work? (which is now replaced with the 'simpleconfigurator') osgi.bundles=org.eclipse.equinox.common#2:start, org.eclipse.update.configurator#3:start, org.eclipse.core.runtime#start
should I call the (p2) director?
"please pick my plugins up" :)
I'd avoid the dropin folder for this - that's more for the
end-users.
I'd avoid messing with the bundles.info if possible.
I don't care about all those smart features in my product yet- actually the users don't use the built-in update mechanism at all.
So I'd like to KISS (ie: just to start up), and add more advanced support when needed.
I've asked this on Eclipse forums, but no answer yet, so would really be grateful for some enlightenment.
Also, feel free to correct me on the assumptions - I've just read the P2 docs, which seem confusing at times.
Thanks!
Answer: actually option 3 above seems to work after all - thanks Francis for confirming this! (it didn't work originally, but that was probably caused by some missing deps).
My only issue with that now is, some Eclipse bundles actually require simpleconfigurator. So I wonder if swapping it out will cause problems down the line.
You can alter your configuration/config.ini file to not use the org.eclipse.equinox.simpleconfigurator (which does the p2-based configuration) and instead use the org.eclipse.update.configurator which is the old-school way of just configuring whatever is in the plugins directory. This should give you what you want.
Even if it does not fully answer what you are after, you can specify in an eclipse.ini (like the one I describe here):
-Dorg.eclipse.equinox.p2.reconciler.dropins.directory=C:/jv/eclipse/mydropins
That does specify to p2 to monitor any directory of your choosing to detect plugins in it.
Another source of idea could be this article: Composing and updating custom Eclipse distros
It's not hard to create a feature based product that includes these things, and do a product build to end up with something like this:
Note: the concept of reconciliation is detailed in the eclipse Wiki.
For certain installations of Eclipse, there will exist the notion of a shared installation -- this may be in the case of a Linux system where a base set of software is installed via packages (perhaps RPMs), or may be in a Maya deployment where shared profiles are defined in a central server.
In both cases, it is necessary to perform reconciliation between the shared profile and the user's current instantiation of the profile including any modifications they may have made.
Part of this mechanism is the Dropins Reconciler setting. Although, as bug 251561 illustrates, it is not advised to put too many plugins in there.
Maybe this will help you (shot in the dark)? I found this when upgrading my Eclipse installation to Galileo and trying to keep my Flex Plugin install.
Related
I have an application in the form of a jar file which is around 2MB in size. For several reasons, I have to bundle the JRE with my application. When I create an MSI with my jar and the JRE, the MSI size comes out to be around 30MB.
I am looking for a commercial or free JRE which I can bundle so that I can reduce the size of my MSI to as low as possible. I am looking at 5MB total, but even upto 10MB may be OK.
Prebuilt JRE Binaries would be great, but not an absolute must.
I looked at similar questions posted here and here.
A lot of answers in these and other threads suggest Excelsior. I downloaded an evaluation version of Excelsior JET & Tried it out - for a few reasons, I think it may not be the right product for me.
1) Excelsior looks at reducing the footprint of the Installed Product not the Installer. I don't care much about the size of the Installed Product - I am mainly looking at a smaller download (the installer of my product currently at 30MB).
2) Amongst other things, Excelsior does lot of optimizations to code to achieve this - I don't want my jar file touched at all. I want a smaller JRE with my jar as is. There isn't a way to turn off some of the optimisations also.
3) Excelsior creates an EXE - I am not particularly looking for this - I am ok with my product being invoked via the javaw.exe command line.
So are there any suggestions for my need?
Avian and ProGuard are your friends as someone has already mentioned in one of the threads you linked to (it's the second comment btw).
From the Avian homepage:
The class library is designed to be as loosely coupled as possible,
allowing tools like ProGuard to aggressively isolate the minimum code
needed for an application. This translates to smaller downloads and
faster startup.
Sounds like exactly what you need. And if that doesn't help you then look at the rest of the tools referenced in that thread.
There is a possible solution here. Those tools install a minimalistic version of Java. I don't know if it is small enough for you. Just take a look and see:
https://superuser.com/questions/745112/how-do-i-run-a-jar-file-without-installing-java
I would make the JRE a separate install from Oracle (or your preferred vendor) You could have it download as required if you wish. If the JRE is already installed, it would be a waste to download it again even a reduced JRE.
BTW: I wouldn't mess with what is in the JRE because
AFAIK its a violation of your license agreement.
Its very difficult to get right and not remove a class you might need one day.
Maybe outdated: there was a rumor about something called JavaKernel/ConsumerJRE.
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/enicholas/archive/2007/05/java_kernel_unm.html
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/kernel-135055.html
I'm developing a web app.
If I include a jQuery plugin (or the jQuery file itself), this has to be put under my static directory, which is under SCM, to be served correctly.
Should I gitignore it, or add it, even if I don't plan on modifying anything from it?
And what about binary files (graphic resources) that might come with it?
Thanks in advance for any advice!
My view is that everything you need for your application to run correctly needs to be managed. This includes third-party code.
If you don't put it under SCM, how is it going to get deployed correctly on your production systems? If you have other ways of ensuring that, that's fine, but otherwise you run the risk that successful deployment is a matter of people remembering to do all the right things, rather than some automated low-risk "push the button" procedure.
If you don't manage it under SCM or something similar, how do you ensure that the versions you develop against and test against are the same? And that they're the same as production? Debugging an issue caused by a version difference you don't notice can be horrible.
I generally add external resources to my project directly. Doing so facilitates deployment and ensures that if someone changes the version of this file in your project, you have a clear audit history of what happened in case it causes issues in the code that you've written. Developers should know not to modify these external resources.
You could use something like git submodules, I suppose, but I haven't felt that this is worth the hassle in the past.
Binary files from external sources can be checked in to the project as well, although if they're extremely large you may want to consider a different approach.
There aren't a lot of reasons not to put external resources like jQuery into your repo:
If you pull it down from jQuery every time you check out or deploy, you have less control over which version you're using. This holds true for most third-party libraries; you probably don't want to upgrade your libraries without testing with your code to see if it breaks something.
You'll always have a complete copy of your site when you check out your repository and you won't need to go seeking resources that may have become unavailable.
For small (in terms of filesize) things like jQuery and images, I'd just add them unless you're really, really concerned about space.
It depends.
These arguments relate to having a copy of the library on your system and not pulling it from it's original location.
Arguments in favour:
It will ensure that everything needed for your project can be found in one place when someone else joins your development team. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to scramble around looking for the right versions of libraries in order to be able to get something working.
If you make any modifications to the library you can make these changes to the source controlled version so when a new version comes out you use the source control's merging tools to ensure your edits don't go missing.
Arguments against:
It could mean everyone has a copy of the library locally - unless you map the 3rd party tools to a central server.
Deploying could be problematical - again unless you map the 3rd party tools to a central server and don't include them in the deploy script.
Putting development tools (compilers, IDEs, editors, ...) and runtime environments (jre, .net framework, interpreters, ...) under the version control has a couple of nice reasons. First, you can easily compile/run your program just by checking out your repository. You don't have to have anything else. Second, the triple is surely version compatible as you once tested it. However, it has its own drawbacks. The main one is the big volume of large binary files that must be put under version control system. That may cause the VCS slower and the backup process harder. What's your idea?
Tools and dependencies actually used to compile and build the project, absolutely - it is very useful if you ever have to debug an issue or develop a fix for an older version and you've moved on to newer versions that aren't quite compatible with the old ones.
IDE's & editors no - ideally you're project should be buildable from a script so these would not be necessary. The generated output should still be the same regardless of what you used to edit the source.
I include a text (and thus easily diff-able) file in every project root called "How-to-get-this-project-running" that includes any and all things necessary, including the correct .net version and service packs.
Also for proprietry IDE's (e.g. Visual Studio), there can be licensing issues as this makes it difficult to manage who is using which pieces of software.
Edit:
We also used to store batch files that automatically checked out the source code automatically (and all dependencies) in source control. Developers just check out the "Setup" folder and run the batch scripts, instead of having to search the repository for appropriate bits and pieces.
What I find is very nice and common (in .Net projects I have experience with anyway) is including any "non-default install" dependencies in a lib or dependencies folder with source control. The runtime is provided by the GAC and kind of assumed.
First, you can easily compile/run your program just by checking out your repository.
Not true: it often isn't enough to just get/copy/check out a tool, instead the tool must also be installed on the workstation.
Personally I've seen libraries and 3rd-party components in the source version control system, but not the tools.
I keep all dependencies in a folder under source control named "3rdParty". I agree that this is very convinient and you can just pull down the source and get going. This really shouldnt affect the performance of the source control.
The only real draw back is that the initial size to pull down can be fairly large. In my situation anyone who pulls downt he code usually will run it also, so it is ok. But if you expect many people to pull down the source just to read then this can be annoying.
I've seen this done in more than one place where I worked. In all cases, I've found it to be pretty convenient.
Almost any IDE creates lots of files that have nothing to do with the application being developed, they are generated and mantained by the IDE so he knows how to build the application, where the version control repository is and so on.
Should those files be kept under version control along with the files that really have something to do with the aplication (source code, application's configuration files, ...)?
The things is: on some IDEs if you create a new project and then import it into the version-control repository using the version-control client/commands embedded in the IDE, then all those files are sent to the respitory. And I'm not sure that's right: what is two different developers working on the same project want to use two different IDEs?
I want to keep this question agnostic avoiding references to any particular IDE, programming language or version control system. So this question is not exactly the same as these:
SVN and binaries - but this talks about binaries and SVN
Do you keep your build tools in version control? - but this talks about build tools (e.g. putting the jdk under version control)
What project files shouldn’t be checked into SVN - but this talks about SVN and dll's
Do you keep your project files under version control? - very similar (haven't found it before), thanks VonC
Rules of thumb:
Include everything which has an influence on the build result (compiler options, file encodings, ASCII/binary settings, etc.)
Include everything to make it possible to open the project from a clean checkout and being able to compile/run/test/debug/deploy it without any further manual intervention
Don't include files which contain absolute paths
Avoid including personal preferences (tab size, colors, window positions)
Follow the rules in this order.
[Update] There is always the question what should happen with generated code. As a rule of thumb, I always put those under version control. As always, take this rule with a grain of salt.
My reasons:
Versioning generated code seems like a waste of time. It's generated right? I can get it back at a push of a button!
Really?
If you had to bite the bullet and generate the exact same version of some previous release without fail, how much effort would it be? When generating code, you not only have to get all the input files right, you also have to turn back time for the code generator itself. Can you do that? Always? As easy as it would be to check out a certain version of the generated code if you had put it under version control?
And even if you could, could you ever be sure that didn't miss something?
So on one hand, putting generated code under version control make sense since it makes it dead easy to do what VCS are meant for: Go back in time.
Also it makes it easy to see the differences. Code generators are buggy, too. If I fix a bug and have 150'000 files generated, it helps a lot when I can compare them to the previous version to see that a) the bug is gone and b) nothing else changed unexpectedly. It's the unexpected part which you should worry about. If you don't, let me know and I'll make sure you never work for my company ever :-)
The major pain point of code generators is stability. It doesn't do when your code generator just spits out a random mess of bytes every time you run (well, unless you don't care about quality). Code generators need to be stable and deterministic. You run them twice with the same input and the output must be identical down to least significant bit.
So if you can't check in generated code because every run of the generator creates differences that aren't there, then your code generator has a bug. Fix it. Sort the code when you have to. Use hash maps that preserve order. Do everything necessary to make the output non-random. Just like you do everywhere else in your code.
Generated code that I might not put under version control would be documentation. Documentation is somewhat of a soft target. It doesn't matter as much when I regenerate the wrong version of the docs (say, it has a few typos more or less). But for releases, I might do that anyway so I can see the differences between releases. Might be useful, for example, to make sure the release notes are complete.
I also don't check in JAR files. As I do have full control over the whole build and full confidence that I can get back any version of the sources in a minute plus I know that I have everything necessary to build it without any further manual intervention, why would I need the executables for? Again, it might make sense to put them into a special release repo but then, better keep a copy of the last three years on your company's web server to download. Think: Comparing binaries is hard and doesn't tell you much.
I think it's best to put anything under version control that helps developers to get started quickly, ignoring anything that may be auto-generated by an IDE or build tools (e.g. Maven's eclipse plugin generates .project and .classpath - no need to check these in). Especially avoid files that change often, that contain nothing but user preferences, or that conflict between IDEs (e.g. another IDE that uses .project just like eclipse does).
For eclipse users, I find it especially handy to add code style (.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs - auto formatting on save turned on) to get consistently formatted code.
Everything that can be automatically generated from the source+configuration files should not be under the version control! It only causes problems and limitations (like the one you stated - using 2 different project files by different programmers).
Its true not only for IDE "junk files" but also for intermediate files (like .pyc in python, .o in c etc).
This is where build automation and build files come in.
For example, you can still build the project (the two developers will need the same build software obviously) but they then could in turn use two different IDE's.
As for the 'junk' that gets generated, I tend to ignore most if it. I know this is meant to be language agnostic but consider Visual Studio. It generates user files (user settings etc..) this should not be under source control.
On the other hand, project files (used by the build process) most certainly should. I should add that if you are on a team and have all agreed on an IDE, then checking in IDE specific files is fine providing they are global and not user specific and/or not needed.
Those other questions do a good job of explaining what should and shouldn't be checked into source control so I wont repeat them.
In my opinion it depends on the project and environment. In a company environment where everybody is using the same IDE it can make sense to add the IDE files to the repository. While this depends a bit on the IDE, as some include absolute paths to things.
For a project which is developed in different environments it doesn't make sense and will be pain in the long run as the project files aren't maintained by all developers and make it harder to find "relevant" things.
Anything that would be devastating if it were lost, should be under version control.
In my opinion, anything needed to build the project (code, make files, media, databases with required program info, etc) should be in repositories. I realise that especially for media/database files this is contriversial, but to me if you can't branch and then hit build the source control's not doing it's job. This goes double for distributed systems with cheap branch creation/merging.
Anything else? Store it somewhere different. Developers should choose their own working environment as much as possible.
From what I have been looking at with version control, it seems that most things should go into it - e.g. source code and so on. However, the problem that many VCS's run into is when trying to handle large files, typically binaries, and at times things like audio and graphic files. Therefore, my personal way to do it is to put the source code under version control, along with general small sized graphics, and leave any binaries to other systems of management. If it is a binary that I created myself using the build system of the IDE, then that can definitily be ignored, because it is going to be regenerated every build. For dependancy libraries, well this is where dependancy package managers come in.
As for IDE generated files (I am assuming these are ones that aren't generated during the build process, such as the solution files for Visual Studio) - well, I think it would depend on whether or not you are working alone. If you are working alone, then go ahead and add them - they will allow you to revert settings in the solution or whatever you make. Same goes for other non-solution like files as well. However, if you are collaborating, then my recomendation is no - most IDE generated files tend to be, well, user specific - aka they work on your machine, but not neccesarily on others. Hence, you may be better of not including IDE generated files in that case.
tl;dr you should put most things that relate to your program into version control, excluding dependencies (things like libraries, graphics and audio should be handled by some other dependancy management system). As for things directly generated by the IDE - well, it would depend on if you are working alone or with other people.
I was always wondering why it is a big deal having version control support inside an IDE.
I always preferred to use a command-line/standalone version of the version control of choice and never found IDE integration helpful.
I know it can be helpful sometimes, for example to automatically keep track of renames, but I was bitten by version control plugins a couple of times (especially the ClearCase Eclipse plugin) that I'm now finding it counter productive compared to the command-line version, where I have better control.
What is your opinion?
Integrated Source Control also helps to only keep the important files under Source control. For example, when I add a new File in Visual Studio, the Plugin (visualSVN) will allow me to add it easily without me having to remember to go outside of my IDE and run the command to add it to the repository. On the other hand, it will automatically ignore temporary files, like the obj/ and bin/ Folders.
Essentially: Integrated Version Control that actually works is a great way to keep the repository clean and complete.
I like how some IDE's implement this. Ankh-SVN for Visual Studio is not that great and is a bit buggy, however Subeclipse I find to work exceedingly well when I'm using Eclipse.
I think it really depends on the IDE you're using and the quality of that plug-in. It's going to work well for some setups and terrible for others.
That's why I like Subversion with Tortoise SVN so much. I can choose to use the IDE integration when and where it makes sense, otherwise, just like you said, I can simply use the command line or in my case, the windows explorer based client!
Integration of the IDE with version control and, in particular, software change management (SCM) helps bringing together the philosophies of the IDE and the source control system.
One example is temporary files and binaries, that should not be checked-in and, e.g. in Visual Studio, end up within the source directory if you're not carefully creating new project and solution templates with a non-default directory configuration.
Another could be tracking of work items and complex bug fixes.
Also it saves some ceremony and context-switching when editing files.
Advanced integrations may also allow to push the change management system's concept of "configuration" ("branch", "tag", "view") into the IDE.
ClearCase integration, however, is clearly not "advanced".
A lot of it is simply the preference and comfort level of the user. Some folks are comfortable with the command line. Some prefer a GUI.
I wouldn't make generalized assumptions that all version control within the IDE is bad or buggy based on experiences with a particular plugin which had issues.
Why even have an IDE? Why not just do everything with a command line? ;)
The answer is that having it integrated with the IDE is "better".
My #1 reason:
You can visually see if a file is checked out or not, and if you need to edit a file, you can take the action right there where you are working.
There are more, but that is the big one.
It's depend on your IDE and the way you work with VCS.
Me and my team using VSS plugin-ins inside Delphi IDE, it gives a lot of flexibable feature when working together for example, All our forms are check-in when you start to write a letter or move components it asked if you want to check-out the code file or form.
also when some one change any code in other forms, it pop up and telling you it's already update by someone else and asking you to update current files in your H.D.
and you just get everything while you are in the IDE, you don't need to move to other external file, or command prompt to do a simple task.
I find most people who like to deal with command prompt working mostly in code without GUI IDE or may I be wrong.
Nearly all of my subversion needs can be handled by the IDE interface. It's a lot faster to do 2 quick clicks than pop up a command line, cd to the right place, issue the command, etc.
Command line has it's place, but with the current crop of IDEs, that place continues to shrink.
I have battle scars from using a buggy implementation of an IDE/VCS integration. In all honesty, if it was not buggy it would have been great. As long as there are great tools like TortoiseSVN, I don't see a need for IDE/VCS integration. I'd rather have more tools that do their job well than a few buggy tools.
Version control support in an IDE generally gives you a better view. The IDE actually knows what type of file you are looking at when doing a diff, which means it can do context highlighting and help you do merges more effectively.
I also think it saves setup time. In stead of installing all kinds of tools, a developer can download the IDE, do a checkout an be on it's way. If every developer on a project uses the same IDE, they can help eachother.
"Counterproductive" is a large word. If you have serious CVS/SVN problems maybe once a month, it's still way to few to have complicated clients installed on all your dev machines.
I have both systems where there is an integrated IDE (Microsoft FrontPage against an IIS Development Web site with Visual Source Safe on all of the web content) and where there is not (java command-line development, Visual Studio Express Editions). An intermediate case that I use is jEdit 4.x with VSS integration via plug-in.
I think the integrated case is valuable for the reason it always is -- you don't have to leave your application to interact with source-control functions and you don't have to worry about remembering to add new files and to check out files before editing them. The ability to have a smooth work process and to minimize the risk of oversights is powerful, as far as I am concerned. Even when the IDE-plugin integration is less than perfect (the jEdit 4.x case), I still prefer it over not having it.
I also agree that having explorer integration on Windows, the case for Tortoise SVN, is also a great capability, even when IDE integration is available. This allows convenient operation without having to launch the IDE while also being able to launch from the explorer window into the IDE (depending on file type) or editor or make or whatever while operating in Windows Explorer.
And yes, the command-line interfaces remain valuable, especially for scripting of recuring-operation patterns.
I operate in many contexts. Having low barriers and fluidity of operation in all of them is to be prized.
I'm not sure I understand the question. IDEs by definition are integrated, meaning that they're supposed to help you avoid the need to get out of the environment for anything project-related. Version control obviously fits the bill.
If you're looking for more practical reasons, one is that IDEs can offer you awareness by the nature of their graphical presentation. Eclipse, for example, will present files and directories that have changed. With additional plugins or suites, you can ever get real-time awareness as soon as another user is editing the same file, helping you predict a merge conflict before it occurs. I'm not familiar with a commandline based mechanism.
I use intellij integrated with cvs on a regular basis and by far the best feature of the integration of version control inside the IDE is line-by-line indications of what is added, edited, or deleted along with easy access (mouse hover/tool tip) to the pre-edit changes.
This is all within the source code in a non-obtrusive way.
For the nuts and bolts of version control (checkin/checkout/update/etc) I sometimes use the IDE and sometimes use the command line.
The number 1 reason for an SCM integrated with the IDE is that it makes it more effortless to use it and eliminates the need to REMEMBER to check things out. Through experience I have seen that steps that developers construe as extraneous, which often encompases anything other than writing code, don't get done. Making them do extra steps increases the odds that developers won't bother with it and will work around the source control system