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. Regards, Thomas Hallgren _______________________________________________ p2-dev mailing list p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
|