[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [platform-update-dev] Shared Install versus Shared Configuration
|
Hi Mark,
I've
never seen a valid use for the shared install scenario using update manager
so would be interested in hearing one. I've often wondered why they added
that scenario to the docs. The only time I have seen it being useful is
when you manage the local configuration and keeping the shared area as
a pool of plugins/features. So if you wanted to have each user have a different
configuration then each would have to manage theirs via the Manage Configuration
in eclipse update. Since the shared install scenario also requires
read-only access to the install area users can't install anything to it.
All a normal user can do is enable/disable features. They can't update
existing features in the shared area.
An admin wanting to use update manager
to update the shared area would have to specify a separate configuration
flag when running their eclipse so as not to contaminate
eclipse -configuration <anywhere
that isn't the shared configuration>
Peter
platform-update-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 06/12/2007
11:06:20 AM:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks for the reply. That makes sense and is how I understand
how
> things work, but you are describing a shared configuration scenario
> (as opposed to a shared install scenario). I figured this is
what I
> wanted, but after my last raft of posts to this group I was starting
> to second-guess things. ;o) We currently are using a shared
install
> scenario - which is different from what you are describing but from
> my interpretation of the docs *should* work. But it seems either
> inconsistent/buggy - or we are abusing it in some way resulting in
> unexpected/unintended behaviour.
>
> Mark.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> platform-update-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 06/12/2007 10:57:57
AM:
>
> >
> > When we create shared installs for the Rational products we install
> > the base eclipse and set the permissions to be readonly by root.
> > Only root is then allowed to install and mess around with the
> > configuration in the shared install area.
> >
> > When a user launches eclipse it detects that the shared
install
> > area is readonly it creates a configuration area in the users
> > directory. This configuration has a reference to the shared
> > configuration. The platform.xml generated int he user space looks
> like this.
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > <config date="1175627511645" shared_ur="file:configuration/org.
> > eclipse.update/platform.xml" transient="false"
version="3.0">
> > </config>
> >
> >
> > So when root updates the shared area the shared platform.xml
is
> > updated. When the user starts up eclipse it references the shared
> > platform.xml.
> >
> > If a user then installs new features they get installed into
a user
> > writeable area and are referenced only in the user's platform.xml
> > and not in the base platform.xml which everyone shares.
> >
> > The key to sharing an eclipse install is sharing the configuration.
> > The plugins/features can be anywhere but managing the configuration
> > is the core part and that is what the Update Manager primarily
does.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > platform-update-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 06/12/2007 10:30:16
AM:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Everyone,
> > >
> > > I have one more question which I posted to the Equinox newsgroup
but
> > > got no response. I know it has been less than a day...but
I am
> > > trying to get a release together by Friday and I am in a
serious
> > > time crunch right now so I apologize for all the questions
ahead of
> > > time. The post is pasted at the end of this email,
but my question,
> > > in a nutshell, is as follows:
> > >
> > > In the case of Scenario #2 from the Eclipse multi-user install
docs (the
> > > shared install), how do you go about installing updates
to the
> > > shared installation area and ensure your users pick them
up? Is it
> > > supposed to just work? I have run across at least
one machine where
> > > it doesn't, but perhaps I am doing it wrong. Here
is the problem.
> > > From the docs, a shared install scenario implies there is
only ever a
> > > config.ini in the configuration area contained in the shared
install
> > > area (in other words it is not initialized). OK, fine.
But who
> > > installs the updates to the plugins when you want to add
features to
> > > a product? I think the answer to this question is
- it doesn't
> > > matter as long as they have write access to the shared installation
> > > area. However, by what mechanism are these changes
propagated to
> > > the restricted users sharing the installation? When
a restricted
> > > user runs Eclipse after the shared install has had more
> > > features/plugins installed into it, I assume the changes
aren't
> > > looked for or detected unless a -clean is issued (although
it
> > > appears to work strangely enough on all machines I have
tried
> except one).
> > > The logical part of my brain tells me that in order to install
> > > updates to a shared install, you should run with your configuration
> > > area explicitly set to the configuration area contained
in the
> > > shared install area, but this will force metadata to be
created in
> > > this area and by definition you are no longer in a shared
install
> > > mode anymore. In fact, Eclipse seems to detect that
this metadata
> > > is present and automagically flip into cascaded mode (or
Scenario #3 -
> > > shared configuration) - which is quite different.
> > >
> > > Am I missing something here?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > Mark.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:41:10 -0400, Mark Melvin <mark_melvin@amis.
> > com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi There,
> > > >
> > > > I have a problem which is driving me insane. I'm
not sure if this
> > > > belongs here or if I should be posting this to the
platform
> newsgroup,
> > > > but here goes.
> > > >
> > > > This is a question about a problem with a product based
on a full
> > > > platform runtime (3.3RC3), but I need help tracing
through the OSGI
> > > > stuff. I have a weird bug that is only reproducible
on one
> machine (it
> > > > is not reproducible on many other machines that I have
tried). It
> > > > involves new features installed into an Eclipse site
not being
> noticed.
> > > > The features and plugins are there in the features
and plugins
> > folders -
> > > > but Eclipse ignores them. I am running a "shared
install" where the
> > > > features and plugins were installed by an administrator
(using the
> > > > Eclipse command line update mechanism - called from
our
> installer), but
> > > > when I log in as a regular user these features are
not noticedand my
> > > > user-specific configuration area goes unmodified.
> > > >
> > > > On every other machine I have tried this on, when I
log in as
> a regular
> > > > user after performing the "update", my user-specific
> configuration area
> > > > is regenerated with the new information and the features
are
> there. I
> > > > cannot for the life of me figure out what the heck
is going on here.
> > > > The failing machine is a ghosted test machine that
is basically
> > > > completely clean install of WinXP SP2. Why it
works on every other
> > > > machine is beyond me. The only possible difference
I can see is that
> > > > this old machine is FAT-based and all of the others
I have tried are
> > > > NTFS-based. The only reason I mention this detail
is because
> > the act of
> > > > updating (installing the new feature) seems to create
a lot ofjunk in
> > > > the Local Settings\Temp folder of the admin account
(cached
> versions of
> > > > the .JAR files), and the configuration area of the
> administratoris also
> > > > modified. But - this should not matter as far
as I understandthings.
> > > > When I fire up Eclipse the next time as a restricted
user -
> > shouldn't it
> > > > do some sort of lightweight scan to determine if the
> configuration area
> > > > needs to be refreshed?
> > > >
> > > > Oh, an important note. If I execute Eclipse with
-clean, the
> > feature is
> > > > detected. But this should not be necessary in
my opinion.
> > Although now
> > > > that I think about it...if you do not execute Eclipse
with -
> clean, how
> > > > does Eclipse *ever* know you have installed additional
features
> > when you
> > > > are running in a "shared install" scenario?
It looks to me like the
> > > > install information goes into the configuration area
of the user that
> > > > installed the features - in this case the administrator.
But this
> > > > doesn't make sense. How the heck would you *ever*
be able to install
> > > > new features into a shared installation so they were
> accessible without
> > > > doing a -clean? And why the heck does it work
for all of my machines
> > > > except one? I'm very confused... ;o)
> > > >
> > > > I guess what I was hoping to find was:
> > > >
> > > > 1) More knowledge on exactly how the configuration
areas know when
> > > > something has been added to the shared install, and
thus need
> torefresh
> > > > themselves (in particular, regenerate platform.xml).
> > > > 2) A way to further diagnose this problem - perhaps
enabling
> some sort
> > > > of logging or secret console trick to show me why a
feature may
> > not have
> > > > been loaded.
> > > >
> > > > I mention point #2 because if I do into Manage Configuration,
> and show
> > > > disabled features - it shows me the feature that it
is failingto find
> > > > and it says it is disabled. However, I assume
this may be a
> redherring
> > > > because it looks like the manage configuration tool
scans the
> features
> > > > and plugins directories and then tries to match what
it found
> toactive
> > > > bundles.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, any enlightenment would be most welcome. I
have spentover 2
> > > > days on this so far.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > platform-update-dev mailing list
> > > platform-update-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-update-dev
> > [attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by Mark Melvin/AMI]
> > _______________________________________________
> > platform-update-dev mailing list
> > platform-update-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-update-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.
> _______________________________________________
> platform-update-dev mailing list
> platform-update-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-update-dev
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature