[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [p2-dev] Version Type Proposal

I missed that one - Artifact Key needs to be discussed.

On Dec 4, 2008, at 12:23 AM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:

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.

Thomas Hallgren

p2-dev mailing list