RE: [p2-dev] Categories

["Schaefer, Doug" <Doug.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think understanding that we can deal with it.

Our Wind River Installer avoided using Categories because of the
confusion we had around them. We have our own UI right now so we can get
away with that. The discussion today helped me understand them a lot
better and I think we'll look at doing things differently in the future.

BTW, one thing that had us confused was that we didn't think nesting
worked and I think I even tried it and it didn't work (so I agree with
Jeff's surprise there). I haven't tried 3.5 yet, though. But I see
nesting as critical as the size of categories grow and we need to
present a more tree like representation for them (as we do in our
products).

Cheers,
Doug. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Hallgren
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 3:39 PM
> To: P2 developer discussions
> Subject: Re: [p2-dev] Categories
> 
> Susan Franklin McCourt wrote:
> >
> >
> > So... the category structure has to be independent of the IU.
> > When figuring out how to represent it, using an IU as convenient. 
> >  However, a category has never been intended to be installable (see 
> > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=229301).  I realize 
> > representing it using an IU is misleading to us 
> programmers.  The UI 
> > knows that it's not truly installable, and it does play "tricks" to 
> > merge content from different repos.
> >
> The UI present in the IDE is not the only one that need to 
> play tricks here. All code that deals with the categories 
> will need to do the same. 
> Our service for instance, will need a lot of special code to 
> cater for this. All other code that deal with p2 in the 
> future, will also need to handle this kind of IU's in a special way.
> 
> - thomas
> _______________________________________________
> p2-dev mailing list
> p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
>