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

I responded to the general questions in a previous response.
It is *not* the intention that an uncategorized feature is not seen when not grouping my category. However, in the SDK the feature must be marked with the "group" property to be visible.
Please open a bug if you have a case where this is not so.

susan
Inactive hide details for Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>




          Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>
          Sent by: p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

          01/26/2009 08:46 AM
          Please respond to P2 developer discussions



To: P2 developer discussions <p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc:
Subject: Re: [p2-dev] Categories


David M Williams wrote: Yes, but it doesn't cover the fact that unless the feature is categorized, it doesn't show up in *any* of the views. Is that the intended behavior?

- thomas


      Inactive hide details for Thomas Hallgren ---01/26/2009 11:27:40 AM---Hi, I discovered that an attempt to install from a MetadaThomas Hallgren ---01/26/2009 11:27:40 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 11:27 AM

      Subject:

      [p2-dev] Categories

      Sent by:

      p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx




      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





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

GIF image

GIF image

GIF image