Bug 21361 - no support for optional features
Summary: no support for optional features
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Update (deprecated - use Eclipse>Equinox>p2) (show other bugs)
Version: 2.0   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows 2000
: P1 blocker (vote)
Target Milestone: 2.0.1   Edit
Assignee: Christophe Elek CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2002-07-08 12:24 EDT by Greg Adams CLA
Modified: 2002-08-22 09:51 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Greg Adams CLA 2002-07-08 12:24:48 EDT
If a higher level feature wants to include a feature below that may be optional 
it has no way to do this. It would require two flavours of higher level 
feature – one with the lower optional feature and one without. This ripples all 
the way up.
Comment 1 Greg Adams CLA 2002-07-08 13:06:13 EDT
We have not yet resolved how we are bundling some of the optional features. A 
workaround may be to put them into separate extensions and not list them as 
requires/included but this has other implications. For example, since those 
features come from others the implication to not having them included in our 
feature means that the user can now receive auto updates from the original 
feature supplier which could be a seriouse problem.

We are listing this as blocking even though there is a chance it may not be if 
we can workaround it safely.
Comment 2 Pat McCarthy CLA 2002-07-08 15:47:47 EDT
An extension could have multiple root features.  Each root feature, as long as 
it is not the product brand (primary feature), can be optional (enabled/disabled 
if it has a license).   

This is now products should include the SDK(PDE/Source) as an optional part of 
the install.  No other feature includes to worry about and the consumer can 
disable the SDK when required, as it is a root feature.

With this approach other features would not include the optional feature.  It 
would be a root, with its own update url definition (which could be the same).  

Wouldn't this allow you to structure your features such that this is not a 
blocking problem?
Comment 3 Greg Adams CLA 2002-07-08 17:59:46 EDT
1) How does a subsequent extension indicate that it requires those features? 
Would it need a set of things indicate it requires the optional feature, and 
another set that said it didn't.

2) Also in the upgrade case (if it could be done with extensions) then the 
wsadie extension would effectively want to say its feature include those from 
wsad.
Comment 4 Vlad Klicnik CLA 2002-07-18 23:07:33 EDT
I have put together a design note with a proposed 2.0.1 approach for this and 
several related defects. See the doc below (have to paste the split line 
together to get the whole url).

http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/platform-update-
home/doc/feature_extensions.html
Comment 5 Vlad Klicnik CLA 2002-07-18 23:12:24 EDT
Sorry, got the url wrong

http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/platform-update-
home/doc/working/feature_extensions.html
Comment 6 Christophe Elek CLA 2002-08-22 09:51:12 EDT
Implemented in 2.0.1. (0821 is the test driver)