[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [platform-update-dev] Shared Install versus Shared Configuration


Hi Dorian,

We just had a big pow-wow about this and that is exactly what we decided to do.  And I believe that is what Peter/Rational is doing as well.  However, all of us here agree that it really is a bug in the platform that as a restricted user, you are not even informed of updates to existing plugins if you cannot update the shared install (it just tells you there are no updates available).  I (we) think that if you are restricted user and you check for updates, the platform should at least tell you updates are available and that you may not be able to install them.  This is basically the way it works for patches right now, except it just fails at the last step when it tries to install them into a location that you do not have permission to modify.  It should fail gracefully way sooner than that.

I'll file an enhancement request (or bug report) in Bugzilla for this.

Thanks for all of your help on this, Peter and Dorian.

Mark.
----------------------------------------------------------



Dorian Birsan <birsan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: platform-update-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/12/2007 01:33 PM

Please respond to
"Eclipse Platform Update component developers list."        <platform-update-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To
"Eclipse Platform Update component developers list." <platform-update-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [platform-update-dev] Shared Install versus Shared Configuration






Mark,


Don't set anything in the config.ini, eclipse will figure our for each user how to create a new configuration folder that cascades to the base/shared one.
That way, when the admin updates the shared install, s/he will use the default config.ini and everything gets updated on the shared install.


-Dorian



Mark_Melvin@xxxxxxxx
Sent by: platform-update-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/12/2007 12:23 PM

Please respond to
"Eclipse Platform Update component developers list."        <platform-update-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To
<platform-update-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [platform-update-dev] Shared Install versus Shared Configuration








Hi Peter,


Thanks again for the reply.  It is good to talk to someone else who uses this stuff!


OK, so I am once again thinking the *proper* thing we should be doing is using a shared configuration area just as you describe.  However, there is one wrinkle with this approach that I have encountered.  It seems to me that you also cannot update any existing features located in the shared install area of a "shared configuration" scenario - even as root - unless you manually specify the shared configuration area on the command line.  I say this because the way we force a shared configuration (and when I say shared configuration I am also implying that you are running in cascaded configuration mode) is to add the following to the
config.ini file in the eclipse/configuration folder:

# Force a user-writable configuration location

osgi.configuration.area=@xxxxxxxxx/.eclipse/<productid>_<version>/configuration


# Make the configuration area cascaded (may not be necessary)

osgi.configuration.cascaded=true


In the course of figuring out how all of this works, I have noticed that we do not need to explicitly set
osgi.sharedConfiguration.area or osgi.sharedConfiguration.area.readOnly as they are set automatically when the platform goes into cascaded mode.  In fact, I believe as long as there is a pre-populated (initialized) configuration area in the eclipse/configuration folder, as long as you specify a different configuration area (using osgi.configuration.area) then you probably don't even need to set osgi.configuration.cascaded either.

So, having the above lines in
eclipse/configuration/config.ini, and assuming the eclipse/configuration folder also contains an initialized, shared configuration area - if we want to be able to update features and plugins in the shared installation you will need to first of all be root or an administrator, and secondly run Eclipse with the -configuration <path/to/>eclipse/configuration switch.  You may even need to add -vmargs -Dosgi.configuration.cascaded=false, I'm not sure.  So as I see it - in our case, we would want to add a second shortcut to our product that adds these command line options that allows you to install updates via our update site - if you happen to be an administrator.  Otherwise, if you try to run a "check for updates" operation - it will always tell you there are no updates (even if there are) because in cascaded mode, whether the directory is physically writable by you or not - Eclipse sets the shared configuration area to be non-updateable.

Mark.

----------------------------------------------------------



platform-update-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 06/12/2007 11:58:10 AM:

>
> 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 installdocs (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" 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

_______________________________________________
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.