Re: Continue Eclipse Freemarker DLTK?

Hi Greg, Daniel,

> Do you think you could rehost your DLTK plugins onto github?  That will
make it easier to collaborate.
Sure!

I have pushed Freemarker DLTK on GitHub
https://github.com/angelozerr/Freemarker-Eclipse-DLTK
It works with last version of DLTK 4.0 (current is 5.0).

I have written a short dev-guide
https://github.com/angelozerr/Freemarker-Eclipse-DLTK/wiki/Developer-Guide
which
explains how to launch it.
For the features, please read for the moment
https://freemarker.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/freemarker/sandbox/org.eclipse.dltk.freemarker/docs/

I add you as colaborator in my GitHub project. So I think you can push it.
@Daniel, if you are interested, I can add you too.

> Then I can install DLTK dependencies in my environment and try to import
them in.
No needs to install DLTK with classic mean. Just set the Target Platform
(see explanation at
https://github.com/angelozerr/Freemarker-Eclipse-DLTK/wiki/Developer-Guide)
I like this idea about using Target Platform, because you can switch to
another version of DLTK without installing it in your Eclipse.

> Which part of the features of the current DLTK editor require FM3.0 and
which can work on 2.3?
My work doesn't work with FM 2.3 because FM3.0 changes package name for
instance. But I think it will be easy to switch to 2.3
the only thing is to create some patches because debugger should be
improved.

> If you are interested I could create a GitHub project in my GitHub
> https://github.com/angelozerr
>
> That's good, I prefer that over sf.net SVN.
>

Ok, it's done.  https://github.com/angelozerr/Freemarker-Eclipse-DLTK


>
> The FM 3 branch you are talking about (the sf.net SVN trunk) is
> "officially" dead for a long time, and it wont ever yield a release.
> So in theory, you had to build on what's on GitHub (use the "2.3-gae"
> branch now). Of course, 2.3 has virtually no public AST API, so you
> can't use that either. (And I guess some other things will be missing
> too. Can you tell me what?) So for now you will have to work against
> FM 3.
>
> As of what will it work on then when it's released... The AST stuff
> changes will break BC too much for a 2.3 (I guess), so it will have to
> be FM 2.4. But if it's 2.4.0, then of course I will want to put in
> some other minor not-strictly-BC changes too (not to mention new
> features that somehow justifies in the eyes of the average uses the
> 2nd version increase). I will be careful not to be too ambitious with
> it, as I don't want to impede the release of the plugin, or undermine
> the trust on the release of the new 2.4 branch. So as you see, there
> are some difficulties, but if you are going to work on the plugin, I
> will try very hard to clear its way.
>

I will try to migrate to 2.3 to see if they are a lot of modification to
do.

>
> > 3) DBGP Debugger
> >
> > Existing code of Debugger should be modified to support several
> > implementation of Debugger (RMI, DBGP, etc). So I think it's the
> > first step if we decide to develop Freemarker DLTK.
>
> (I see the discussion about that with Greg Amerson has been started .)
>
> > Regards Angelo
>
Regards Angelo

>
> --
> Thanks,
>  Daniel Dekany
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev

_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel