Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [orbit-dev] N-builds and orbit bundles from branches?

Jeff McAffer wrote:

> Hmm. I don't know much about OBR, but I am also not sure why
> standardizing repository is a bad thing? I am not sure what tools
> can read repository at osgi.org, but I am pretty sure there is
> bunch of tools already that can fetch dependencies from Maven or
> Ivy repositories.

 you are happy with standardizing the repo as long as it is Maven :-)

I am happy as long as it helps to common support developers and build workflows. So, widely adopted format is obviously better. Don't you think?

 What if we decide that it is Update Site format?  The point is that
 personally I don't want to be in the position of making that
 decision.  I want to leave it open.  More flexible, more evolvable,
 ...

You can't always get an ideal solution. But usually there is a number of good or acceptable options to pick from. I would think that it is better to pick some solution then postpond resolving existing issues. BTW, nothing actually stops to implement custom site layout for Update Manager that would use Maven's repository...

>>> It is different, because Orbit does not provide the update
>>> site.
>>
>> Actually it isn't.  What workflow would you use if there was an
>> Orbit update site?
>
> Fetch dependent features from the Orbit's update site, code, run,
> debug. Create own update site linked with the Orbit's one for
> required dependencies. Done.

 I am driving at something deeper.  What buttons on what dialogs etc
 does the user press to make this happen.  I have an Eclipse SDK and
 want to add some Orbit bundles to my Target.  What do I do?

You open up an update manager on Orbit update site and download required bundles. If I am not mistaken same process can be run from the command line too.

This will be quite similar for Maven repository. There is a plug-in for Eclipse that makes it even more transparent to the developer (whole download thing happens automatically). Or you could also use Eclipse's own Buckminster tool to materialize workspace.

> Don't need any of that. See above. The only exception is when you
> need to create an offline bundle/install, but that can be easily
> resolved with a fetch tool that would grab required features from
> the linked update site.

 Yes, if you are creating new tools, we can do almost anything.  I am
 NOT arguing against that.

 I hope you are not suggesting that PDE build can't be changed?

> Hmm. I am not quite sure what are you suggesting here? There is not
>  tool that has zero issues. Why that is a reason to not use any
> tools at all? :-)

 I am suggesting that we have to take a bigger picture, longer term
 view.  When we adopt tools, processes, formats, ... they have to
 viable in the long term.  Adopting, for example, the Maven repo
 format is IMHO premature.  That repo structure, in and of itself, has
no particular benefits over any other.

I am not saying it is superior then any other repository layout. But it is good enough and it is definitely more scalable then single zip download.

 Its benefit is that Maven
 users can use it.  To date Maven is does not figure largely in the
Eclipse build world.

Don't you think it is nowhere is a Maven's fault, but more because of PDE's own cumbersome and obscure build process? :-)

 That may be changing and as that evolves
 Eclipse as a whole should consider how best to facilitate that
 evolution.  People who want that today can write a tool that sucks
 content from the Orbit site and pushes it to ibibilio for example.

Or, if Orbit would use Maven's repository layout (with no cost to Orbit), you can just run rsync to do that. :-)

> I thought that Orbit project can at least propose and lobby for
> additional requirements on PDE and Update, instead of working
> around shortcomings of those project in a way that would make all
> Orbit users suffer... On the other hand there is always solution
> not to use Orbit, but that would defeat the purpose of this project
> wouldn't it? :-)

 Eugene, you are being extreme.  My point here is that the issues for
 Orbit are no different than the issues for people wanting to consume
 say WTP.  They don't have a Maven repo either.  So the issue is wider
 scoped than Orbit and nay changes that might be proposed to PDE or
 Update would have to be set in that larger context.

Ha! To begin with, for WTP they don't even have the Update site (the half a year old Callisto one does not count).

Please don't use that lack of features or absence of the infrastructure as an excuse for not doing really good things. :-)

 regards,
 Eugene

PS: btw, does anyone monitor the Obrbit news group? I asked some questions that more from the user point of view...




Back to the top