[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [p2-dev] Versions that are not OSGi compliant

Hi Pascal,
Yes, I was really sorry about not being able to participate. My sincere apologies. I had other rather pressing engagements at that precise time. My schedule is flexible but I try to keep the time between 6pm and 10pm free from work (I'm in Stockholm so that's noon to 4pm EST). Any other time is fine by me.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren


Pascal Rapicault wrote:

Since you could not make it to the call (sorry for the short notice), we postponed the call to a later date. Please let us know when you can join.
Note that we are in the process of rescheduling our calls to Monday's at 3 PM EDT.

PaScaL

Inactive hide details for Thomas Hallgren ---15/11/2008 11:38:03 AM---Hi Pascal,  Pascal Rapicault wrote:  I'm mixed about thisThomas Hallgren ---15/11/2008 11:38:03 AM---Hi Pascal, Pascal Rapicault wrote: I'm mixed about this, mostly because I'm not convinced that can


From:

Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>

To:

P2 developer discussions <p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:

15/11/2008 11:38 AM

Subject:

Re: [p2-dev] Versions that are not OSGi compliant





Hi Pascal,
Pascal Rapicault wrote:
      I'm mixed about this, mostly because I'm not convinced that canonicalization does not work (do you have examples)
The tricky thing is to preserve version range semantics. In order to do that, the canonicalization needs to preserve the lexical ordering of versions so you need explicit knowledge about how the version is constituted. I'm not arguing that canonicalization is impossible. It would however not in any way remove the need for explicit handling of each type of version that is subject to it so it doesn't solve the general problem. The way I see it, that in itself makes canonicalization a less attractive choice. What benefits does it bring other then transforming valid and well known versions into something that the user will be very unfamiliar with? And what mechanism would be used to extend it?

I sent out some examples in my previous mail that I think illustrates the need for explicit handling of different types of versions.
      and because of the breadth of the code change.
      Also, here are a few questions that comes to mind:
      - What happen when the "version handler" is not around?
The resolver must treat the version types as prerequisites on its environment. IU's that use types that are not around are incompatible with the current environment. The user must install something more in order to make use of such IU's.
      - Can't we come up with a rule based approach to avoid everyone to have to provide their version handler class?
I think we could come up with a limited set of version types that would cover the majority of cases. You have the OSGi type already. We have a type that we call Triplet that is similar but it's different in that it treats the lack of a qualifier as a higher version and it allows for 1, 2, or 3 digits in the number. We can talk to other major players (guys behind Linux distros for instance) about other commonly used version schemes. I'm pretty sure that we would be very well covered with 4-6 different types. Then, if other companies have other very special requirements, they must provide something that extend our framework. I don't see that as a big deal.
At what time is the call?

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren

_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev



_______________________________________________ p2-dev mailing list p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev

GIF image

GIF image

GIF image

GIF image