Re: [pde-build-dev] The "3.2 Way": Feature/Plugin Dependency Confusion

[Mark_Melvin@xxxxxxxx]

Thanks, Pascal - that makes sense.  But
shouldn't both of these requires clauses use the "feature" attribute
instead of the "plugin" attribute then like this:  

  <requires>
     <import feature="org.eclipse.platform"
version="3.1.0" match="compatible"/>
  </requires> 

  <requires> 
     <import feature="org.eclipse.jdt" version="3.0.0"
match="compatible"/> 
     <import feature="org.eclipse.platform"
version="3.0.0" match="compatible"/>
  </requires> 

Or is that another bit of magic working
around some Update issue I am not aware of?

Thanks,
Mark.
----------------------------------------------------------

Pascal Rapicault <Pascal_Rapicault@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: pde-build-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/13/2006 01:47 PM

Please respond to
"Eclipse PDE Build developers list." <pde-build-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"Eclipse PDE Build developers list." <pde-build-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	pde-build-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, pde-build-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject	Re: [pde-build-dev] The "3.2 Way": Feature/Plugin Dependency Confusion

Mark, 

The eclipse team evolves the version number of features properly, however
it does not express the dependency on the plug-ins directly (features still
require feature instead of plug-ins like recommended). The main reason
for this was that it was too cumbersome to put into use without automated
tooling and also because we would have had to modify update to express
requirements using ranges instead of keywords, both things that we could
not do in the 3.2 timeframe. 

What you are seeing in the PDE feature is bogus. Sorry for the confusion.

HTH, 

PaScaL

Mark_Melvin@xxxxxxxx
Sent by: pde-build-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/13/2006 01:35 PM

Please respond to
"Eclipse PDE Build developers list." <pde-build-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	pde-build-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	[pde-build-dev] The "3.2 Way": Feature/Plugin Dependency Confusion

Hi There, 

I am moving the build of our product over to Eclipse 3.2.  While I
am at it I am overhauling the feature structure, and I thought would move
to the new way of plugin versioning as well.  Three major changes
to our build due by Friday - what could possibly go wrong? ;o)

I must admit however, I am a little confused with the recommended way of
declaring dependencies between features (plugins?) as recommended in this
document: 

http://www.eclipse.org/equinox/documents/plugin-versioning.html

In particular, under Versioning Features it says: 

To avoid the brittleness caused by version changes in required features,
we recommend feature authors favor the _expression_ of their dependencies
at the plug-in level, rather than at the feature level. To be more precise,
all the immediate plug-ins required by the plug-ins included in a feature
should be listed as plug-in prerequisite of the feature. This approach
has the benefit of isolating feature authors from changes that do not impact
them. 

However, when I look at the plugins and features in Eclipse 3.2 RC7, I
do not see this implemented, unless I am not understanding this paragraph
correctly.  If I look at the JDT feature for instance, it only declares
the following "requires": 

  <requires> 
     <import plugin="org.eclipse.platform" version="3.1.0"
match="compatible"/> 
  </requires> 

What?  Only require the org.eclipse.platform **plugin**?  It
might make sense if it was requiring the *feature*, but...  OK, so
I check the PDE feature and it does something similar:

  <requires> 
     <import plugin="org.eclipse.jdt" version="3.0.0"
match="compatible"/> 
     <import plugin="org.eclipse.platform" version="3.0.0"
match="compatible"/> 
  </requires> 

What the heck is going on here?  Why are these features only requiring
basically what amounts to "branding" plugins?  I can see
that all of the declaration of versions matching is actually done in each
plugin explicitly on all of its dependencies, but what are these features
trying to accomplish with these requires clauses??

Thanks, 
Mark. 
AMI Semiconductor - "Silicon Solutions for the Real World"
NOTICE: 
This electronic message contains information that may be confidential or
privileged. The information is intended for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information is prohibited. If you received this electronic message in error,
please notify the sender and delete the copy you received.
_______________________________________________
pde-build-dev mailing list
pde-build-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/pde-build-dev
_______________________________________________
pde-build-dev mailing list
pde-build-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/pde-build-dev

AMI Semiconductor - "Silicon Solutions for the Real World"
NOTICE: 
This electronic message contains information that may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the copy you received.