[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] RE:[cross-project-issues-dev] Feedback on the europa update site
|
Hello Christian,
yes if a feature is <include> d in some other
feature, it does not need to be listed in site.xml.
BUT if some other feature <requires> one of your
only-<included> features, UM will
select the smallest available container that
<includes> the required feature. Therefore,
end users may end up downloading more (sometimes much more)
than they actually need.
This is what we've tried to sort out for EMF together with
Nick Boldt and Ed Merks,
and what finally was resolved by exposing some of the
<included> features under
"Enabling Features" in order to make sure that somebody who
<requires> only
the small components also gets teh small components only
and not the large
chunk with all the stuff it requires in turn (in this case,
JDT).
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber
Wind River Systems,
Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
As an example, the EMF-QTV
components are contributed to Europa as a pair of features:
Eclipse Modeling Framework
Data Integrity Frameworks Extender SDK
Eclipse Modeling Framework Data Integrity Frameworks
End-User Features
Both of these
comprise, respectively, the SDK and Run-time features of these three distinct
components, to roll them into one.
Each component individually has two run-time features, so that the
all-in-one run-time Europa feature contains:
org.eclipse.emf.emfqtv.all
-
org.eclipse.emf.query
- org.eclipse.emf.query.ocl
- org.eclipse.emf.transaction
-
org.eclipse.emf.workspace
- org.eclipse.emf.validation
-
org.eclipse.emf.validation.ocl
where nesting shows <include>ed features. None of these six
included features is listed in the Europa site.xml. If these features
had, instead, been prereqed via <requires> at either the feature or
plug-in level, then I think it may have been necessary to expose them in the
site.xml.
AFAIK, update manager
has no problem with multiple features <include>ing the same features, so
perhaps <include> can be used more extensively to avoid filling up the
site.xml.
Hope that helps to
clarify,
Christian
Christian W.
Damus
Component Lead, Eclipse OCL and EMF-QTV
IBM
Rational Software
"Oberhuber, Martin"
<Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by:
eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
06/04/07 12:44 PM
Please respond
to "eclipse.org-planning-council"
<eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| "Cross project issues"
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
| Dejan Glozic/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
"eclipse.org-planning-council"
<eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
Subject
| [eclipse.org-planning-council]
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Feedback
on the europa update site |
|
My memory might fool me, but I think that my experience has
shown me so far, that
"Select
Required" does NOT work for features which are available on the site but
not
listed on site.xml . After
all, UM would not be able to display a selection for such
features, would it? And, how would it know that
these features exist after all? I don't
think it scans the remote directory, I even don't think it would be
capable of doing that
through
the http: protocol.
I have no time to verify this again now, but I'd recommend
Bjorn to wait with changes
to
the build system until someone has verified what "Select Required"
does.
Perhaps Dejan knows off the top of his head?
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber
Wind River Systems,
Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff
McAffer
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 4:30 PM
To: Cross
project issues
Cc: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx;
Cross project issues; eclipse.org-planning-council
Subject: Re:
[cross-project-issues-dev] Feedback on the europa update site
Note that I said,
" Of course, there may well be a reality issue
blocking this theory... "
Please
confirm that this all works as described, expected, desired before going off
and doing Europa-wide changes.
Jeff
Bjorn Freeman-Benson
<bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
06/04/2007 10:15 AM
Please respond
to Cross project issues
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| Cross project issues
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"eclipse.org-planning-council"
<eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: [cross-project-issues-dev]
Feedback on the europa update site |
|
Hmm, I learn something new every day... Ok, I will modify
the Europa build tool not to require that all features be listed in site.xml.
I will send email to the list after I have done that so that any project who
wishes to modify their portion of the site.xml may do so. Please do not modify
the Europa site.xml until after I have fixed the Europa build tool.
Thanks.
Jeff McAffer wrote:
Just to clarify something, to have a feature be available an
installable from an update site it does NOT have to be listed in the site.xml.
The site.xml is used to show users what is available for them to select
and download. Depending on the workflow the features that are used by
other projects could be put on the Europa site but not in the site.xml.
People should then be able to tell update manager to get the required
features as well. Of course, there may well be a reality issue blocking
this theory...
Jeff _______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev
mailing
list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council
mailing
list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council