[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [equinox-dev] [prov] wondering how pluggable the IU user model is


These questions make a lot of sense and you are hitting on one of the key challenges.  Some thoughts....

- First, we do not *have* to solve all these problems.  In fact, we likely should not try to in the first few cuts.  The world will crumble under the weight of what might be.  Rather, we should try to incrementally extend the solution to include more flexibility.  Ultimate power will come to those willing to rewrite the UI using the building blocks that you supply.

- Entry points (other call them "offerings", "products", ...) are a useful and generic notion.  But (there had to be one), one person's entry point is another's internal implementation detail. So the interesting question becomes, how does the user see only the "entry points" that they should see?  who is controling that experience?  If you as a producer of an IU mark it as an entry point, that may not fit with view of the sysadmin/system integrator at company/site/... X.  Do they rewrite the metadata?  Somehow override it?  Provide another repo and somehow hide the one you supplied?

- Feels like alot of this comes down to filtering and filter definition/management.  For example, perhaps "entry points" are just a query/filter.  You can have yours and I can have mine.  Product / company X may have some too.  Sort of like a set of bookmarks.  Here are the cool things you can install from the known galaxy of IUs.  I can mail you my queries, post them on a website, blog, CVS, ...

- certainly colocation of the repos will be a common case.  We of course are planning for the uncommon and fully supporting separate locations. It would be a bummer if having separate locations was somehow an advanced option.

- One ofthe thoughts we have had in the past was that repo locations could be something that is added/installed into the agent itself.  So, for example, the agent can get updated with more/different repo locations just as it might get updated code.  Somehow knowing about one (say a metadata site) got you a mess of info about others (and so on).

- Changing the wording from product to product is cool but I'm not sure it is key.  Perhaps having a range of metaphors or workflow complexities is more apt here.  Sort of like identifying the 3 or 4 users that we talked about before and supporting them in a first class way.  From there we can look at pluggable messaging etc.

Jeff



Susan M Franklin <susan_franklin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

08/21/2007 08:46 PM

Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
[equinox-dev] [prov] wondering how pluggable the IU user model is






Maybe I'm really wondering how much the IU taxonomy will change from product to product.


We've already discussed that the presentation to the user of what a repository is may differ from product to product.  Or at least that most end users (of the Eclipse SDK, RCP products) are unaware of metadata and artifact repositories as separate entities.  I would expect that many products would want to keep the concept of a "site" (maybe plug in their own terminology or icons), so we must have API to find the artifact repo from a metadata repo or colocate them.   (See discussion in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=200259).


Same is true for profiles.  A user of most RCP products, and even many Eclipse SDK users, would likely not want to know that the provisioning infrastructure supports multiple profiles.  Their view is likely of the "product install location" or something like that, and the fact that there exists a profile that drove this configuration, the fact that bundles might be shared, etc...would be hidden.  


So now I'm wondering if the same is true for IU's, at least those that the user knows about.  We have the notion of IU's that are groups (which is how we filter the IU views in M1).  And Pascal is thinking about an "entry point" concept that would define what the "product view" of a bunch of installable units would be.  


Should we assume a particular taxonomy for most/all RCP apps and build a UI that can be reused in this way?  

Pascal, do you think the entry point concept is the way that we would expect many/most products to show the user what they have?


I used to think that I could build a fairly reusable update UI that could be plugged into different products.   Products could define their terminology for things like IU's (feature, add-on, plug-in), and repositories (sites, repositories, etc.).  Then I realized that we need to do some mapping from the user view (site) to the reality (metadata + artifact repo), and that we might have a default strategy (such as colocation of repos), but ultimately we can't assume how repos are presented to the user.  


Do we think that, for IU's, we can also come up with a default strategy (such as entry points) for deciding how to present IU's?  ie, how to filter the list of IU's the user sees, and more interesting, what would show up on the property page for those kinds of IU's.  


I hope this makes sense....


susan
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev