Reviews run for a minimum of one week. The outcome of the review is decided on this date. This is the last day to make comments or ask questions about this review.
0.6.0
This release includes support for more features from Language Server Protocol 3.7,
It also includes more control for users on the preference page, and allows on the same page easier logging of Language Server execution for Language Server developers
This release includes support for Debug Adapter Protocol 1.25, with good support for many of its features (varuable inspect, expression evaluation, Breakpoints, Step by step execution...)
LSP4J 0.4.0 is used.
With this release, LSP4E moved to EPL-2.0
This release supports Language Server Protocol 3.7 and Debug Adapter Protocol 1.25.
Target users of LSP4E are more integrators who develope there own plugins on top of it. LSP4E end-users do not realize much the existence of LSP4E as the feature they face are assumed to be provided by downstream project doing the integration.
In the adopter community, LSP4E has several successful implementations, with new ones since last release:
- Eclipse Corrosion (Rust IDE) is built on top of it
- Red Hat uses it to enable some services in their Red Hat Developer Studio
- Spring Tools Suite relies on LSP4E to enrich some of the Spring-related editor
- Apache Camel Tools uses it to enable some specific edition features in XML files
- since jbosstools-freemarker was abandoned, some developers are trying to rewrite FreeMarker editor in Eclipse IDE using Language Servers and LSP4E
- Some successful experiments were reported on social about using LSP4E to enable OCaml edition assist in Eclipse IDE
The contributor community is growing with
- 15 distinct contributors who have at least got one patch merged between 0.4.0 and 0.6.0
- a solid block of 6 regular contributors (not all committers though) who have more than 5 patches merged since 0.4.0 and who are also active on mailing-list and Gerrit
During this release, LSP4E project did clarify its list of committers to remove inactive one and elect new active ones, in order to better reflect the state of the project. But since the review system works well, the project didn't feel the need to grow the committers list to big at the moment and uses number contributors in general as a metric of successful community more than to the number of committers.