John Arthorne wrote:
Hi Henrik,
The proposal looks good - well
thought
out and staged. Some questions/comments:
We use Version/VersionRange in many
different places in p2, so it would be good to clarify where this
generalization
is needed. Obviously you are interested in
IInstallableUnit/RequiredCapability/ProvidedCapability,
but there are many other areas as well:
- File format version numbers
(content.xml, artifact.xml, etc)
- UpdateDescriptor
- Touchpoint version numbers and
touchpoint action versions
- Publisher advice versions
- Artifact key versions
I suspect many of these other uses
wouldn't
stand to benefit much from moving to generic version types, but it's
worth
clarifying the scope of the proposed changes.
I think the ArtifactKey version could be within scope for the proposal.
Isn't it used in conjunction with a rule to form an actual file name?
Many repositories that we consider candidates for mapping use similar
semantics.
I would consider the other cases as definitely out of scope since they
are part of the P2 model.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
|