> <cotangent 2>
> My thoughts were along these lines. Currently we have an IU with id
> "sdk" in the sample. This sample provides no capabilities
> list requirements to be installed. While it should remain an IU it
> should be categorized by subclassing or creating an interface for
> all of these: IU fragment, IU, etc. That would allow another
> abstraction that manages a description ("sdk") of what can
> installed. These could me managed on a per user basis if that is
> what is wanted.
Not sure what subclassing or interfacing would do
for managing things on a per user basis. FYI, to date we have explicitly
been avoiding type hierarchies in favour of aggregation in the metadata
design. While it is not without pitfalls, we believe that this has
brought and will continue to bring big benefits in the areas of simplicity,
usability and flexibility.