[kepler-dev] Hiding port names

[Edward A Lee]

At 08:09 AM 7/26/2004 -0800, Matt Jones wrote:
>Yeah, we fully intend to support the CVS HEAD for PTII in our kepler 
>builds, as it seems like the only way to really keep synchronized.  Over 
>the last week several of us have been building against the CVS head, with 
>mixed results.  Sometimes it works, sometimes not...haven't yet figured 
>out the differences among these builds yet that cause the failures.  We'll 
>get the issues worked out fully and then post instructions on the web 
>site.  It should be as simple as checking out the two trees, set 2 env 
>vars, then run 'ant ptolemy run'.  I think the problems we are hitting are 
>due to us not encoding in our ant build some of the dependencies that you 
>cover in your makefiles.

I doubt this... We do builds with Eclipse, which don't use
the makefile dependencies either...

Ideally, I would like to be able to have Kepler and Ptolemy II as
two Eclipse projects, and not use either ant or make... But this
is a personal preference.

I think it would be very helpful if some of us would routinely
build the kepler tree against our current repository... This way,
we could check for problems before checking in major changes to
our tree...

However, I still can't get the ant build to yield an executable
kepler... Any ideas about the problem I reported?  I suspect a classpath
problem, but I haven't been able to figure it out...


>In addition, we need a way to try to incorporate Kepler changes into the 
>PTII tree.  We are working on a variety of changes relating to data access 
>and semantic typing, and several of these require UI changes in 
>vergil.  We have been developing them using the ptolemy extension 
>mechanism through the configuration, so they could be used or not 
>depending on how the configuration is set up.  But there are many areas of 
>vergil which are not configurable, and so we are extending those areas to 
>be configurable where needed.  Ultimately, we need to contribute this code 
>to PTII through the code review process -- I think the easiest way to do 
>this is to have a couple of Kepler developers who have write access to the 
>PTII CVS tree and can contribute code after consultation with PTII 
>developers (like Christopher and yourself).

This sounds like the right approach...


>In many ways I would prefer to not have to maintain two separate CVS trees 
>at all, but I currently don't see a good way to do this because we want 
>the Kepler project to be fully open to a variety of contributors, while 
>the PTII tree is really reserved for the Berkeley Ptolemy project.  But it 
>would be nice to use just a single integrated tree.  I would be interested 
>in chatting with you about whether you could see the two projects really 
>sharing a cvs tree or not, given the project management implications this 
>would have.

In practice, we have a fairly informal mechanism where people
with access to the tree self-regulate.  Those with less experience,
for example, don't check in changes to the kernel package without
running them by others.  Moreover, we have regions of the tree
where "anything goes" (at one extreme, we
have an "apps" directory containing
unproven and sometimes very rough projects).

I could see this mechanism extending to a larger group...

Edward


------------
Edward A. Lee, Professor
518 Cory Hall, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720
phone: 510-642-0455, fax: 510-642-2739
eal at eecs.Berkeley.EDU, http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/~eal