|I missed that one - Artifact Key needs to be discussed.|
On Dec 4, 2008, at 12:23 AM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
John Arthorne wrote:
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)
- 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.
p2-dev mailing list