[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [p2-dev] Categories

There was some discussion about issues 1 & 2 last week in bug 261104 - https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=261104

Inactive hide details for Thomas Hallgren ---01/26/2009 11:28:18 AM---Hi, I discovered that an attempt to install from a MetadaThomas Hallgren ---01/26/2009 11:28:18 AM---Hi, I discovered that an attempt to install from a MetadataRepository that


From:

Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>

To:

P2 developer discussions <p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:

01/26/2009 11:28 AM

Subject:

[p2-dev] Categories




Hi,
I discovered that an attempt to install from a MetadataRepository that
contains only features and bundles will not work. The UM will not
display IU's unless they are found below a category. This seems to be
true regardless of if I list by category or not (I'm using the 3.5
integration build from 22/1). I would expect uncategorized IU's to at
least show up under 'Uncategorized'.

The current use of categories as IU's is of some concern to me. I can
see several cons with that approach:

1. Categories in general are not using qualified names and this results
in collisions when aggregating repositories. We often see categories
named 'core', 'optional', 'tools' etc.

2. Categories are not versioned so we cannot really track how they
change over time.

3. Inviting users to install a category is often counter intuitive. They
may contain several mutually exclusive choices (Subclipse and Subversive
in the SVN category for instance) or a bunch of features listed under
"Optional". You're not supposed to install "Optional". The idea is that
you make your own pick from that category.

4. Categorization would make a lot of sense if you (the IU publisher)
were able to hook into well known categories when publishing. As it is
now, you must own the category and the only thing it can contain is
listed in its required capabilities, essentially making the category
useless (and occupied) for everyone else. I think that category affinity
should be a provided capability (or property) in the respective IU's
that "belongs" to the category. Having the category itself list its
content as requirements is doing it backwards.

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


GIF image

GIF image