[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [p2-dev] IRequiredCapability internal?

Pascal,
We will look in to doing that soon(we don't have time for our current release). Is there any change, or planned change, that would cause this approach to fail for Eclipse based P2 requires in 3.6?

Marcus Kestler

Inactive hide details for Pascal Rapicault ---03/10/2010 10:24:43 AM---Even though today's IRequirements can be mapped straightPascal Rapicault ---03/10/2010 10:24:43 AM---Even though today's IRequirements can be mapped straight to IRequiredCapabilities. Relying on this s


From:

Pascal Rapicault <pascal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

To:

P2 developer discussions <p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:

03/10/2010 10:24 AM

Subject:

Re: [p2-dev] IRequiredCapability internal?

Sent by:

p2-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx




Even though today's IRequirements can be mapped straight to IRequiredCapabilities. Relying on this sort of mapping is just asking for trouble in the long run. The reason is simple. The expressiveness of IRequirement is far more superior to the one of IRequiredCapability and as soon as the community will start leveraging it (for example expressing or'ing, or more complex requirements) then all the tools making assumptions that an IRequirement == IRequiredCapability will start misbehaving.
So I really encourage you to review why you need to know about this and see if you can do without it.

On 2010-03-09, at 7:39 PM, Thomas M Houser wrote:
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev


GIF image

GIF image