kudos to the initiative!
I think there needs to be something that describes a policy for how the "install" should be performed. I think the biggest problem is designing these to capture the typical use cases. I am thinking of :
The two extremes are
- just give me bug fixes (conservative, change as little as possible)
- give me the latest of everything including platform
There is probably at least one intermediate level where user wants to stay on same platform (e.g. 3.6) but then wants the latest of everything else.
It is not always possible to control this by presenting a limited set of repositories.
API wise, the described operations are not so much an "install" (which to me sound more like "install something new") - looks more like an "update" or "sync".
Just my 2c...
On Feb 7, 2011, at 11:04 PM, David Orme wrote:
We have been proposing an additional layer on top of P2 to take care of 80% of the auto-update use-cases really simply. The purpose of this message is to run our proposed API past the community and make sure we're not doing anything silly or stupid as well as to hopefully elicit constructive feedback about this proposal.
1) public InstallStatus install(Set<URL> p2Sites) throws InstallError
The purpose of this API is simply to synchronize the running platform with the union of the IUs available on p2Sites. New stuff is installed; out-of-date IUs are upgraded; IUs that no longer exist on any site are removed from the local configuration.
The InstallStatus return value is an IStatus. It (a) tells the client if it needs to restart, and (b) encapsulates state that you might want to log for diagnostic purposes.
2) public InstallStatus install(Set<URL> p2Sites, Set<IVersionedId> featuresRequested) throws InstallError
Sometimes you want to only make a certain set of Features available to the user, based on their login credentials or if they've given you money, for example. This API presumes that you've done whatever you need to determine what IUs/Features you need, and it installs just those IUs/Features. All other Features are disabled in the current profile.
Having these two APIs would handle all of the self-updating RCP applications we have seen at my client and probably most of them out there. This seems like a lot of expressive value for RCP (and possibly server-side OSGi) clients.
Unless someone objects, we would like to go ahead and implement these (and incubate the work in the E4 repo).
Does anyone see any issues with defining API this way? For example, is it okay for P2 to have a dependency on core.runtime (IStatus)?
Any other thoughts/feedback?
p2-dev mailing list