Re: [tycho-dev] FW: using <feature-id>.feature.group as artifactId

[Igor Fedorenko <igor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

See inline...

--
Regards,
Igor

On 11-11-29 6:19 AM, Oberlies, Tobias wrote:
> Opening to all tycho developers...
>
> -----Original Message----- From:
> ldi-developers-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ldi-developers-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Oberlies, Tobias Sent: Dienstag, 29. November 2011 12:14 To: Sievers,
> Jan; Igor Fedorenko Subject: Re: [ldi-developers]
> using<feature-id>.feature.group as artifactId
>
> I am -0 on supporting artifactId=<featureId>.feature.group. AFAIK the
> ".feature.group" suffix is not API of p2, so we shouldn't make it API
> of Tycho. But I see that this could be an alternative workaround to
> the GAV uniqueness problem.

For all intents and purposes artifactId is internal to Tycho, so I don't
see a problem here.

> I am -1 on disallowing artifactId=<featureId>. This would mean that
> people who name their features "org.example.tool.feature" would be
> forced to set the groupId "org.example.tool.feature.feature.group".
> This makes it easy to use the same IDs for features and bundles
> (which is IMHO a mediocre idea), and put burden on people who name
> their features properly.

Fair enough.


> In any case, Tycho would need to cope with a non-unique mapping
> between artifactId and Eclipse Id (at least in the transition phase)
> - and if we need to implement this anyway, we could also just keep
> it. One reason for not allowing arbitrary artifactIds is that fixing
> all the problems it entails [1] was deemed too much effort.

Supporting two variants is far easier than allowing arbitrary
feature-id/artifacyId mapping.



> Regards Tobias
>
>
> [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=353384
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sievers, Jan
> > Sent: Dienstag, 29. November 2011 09:45
> > To: Igor Fedorenko; Oberlies, Tobias
> > Subject: RE: using<feature-id>.feature.group as artifactId
> >
> > +1
> >
> > the case where there are plugins and features with the same id is
> > unfortunately pretty common and our workaround with a different groupId is
> > ugly.
> >
> > Appending .feature.group is consistent with how p2 solved the same
> > problem.
> >
> > Regards
> > Jan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Igor Fedorenko [mailto:igor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Montag, 28. November 2011 21:00
> > To: Oberlies, Tobias; Sievers, Jan
> > Subject: using<feature-id>.feature.group as artifactId
> >
> > One thing I forgot to mention today.
> >
> > To disambiguate features and bundles with the same id, p2 adds
> > .feature.group suffix when generating IU id from feature id, if feature
> > id does not end with .feature.group already.
> >
> > I would like to do the same in Tycho, only do this more aggressively.
> > For 0.14 allow artifactId with and without .feature.group suffix but
> > when .feature.group is not present. For the next version only allow
> > artifactId=<feature-id>.feature.group
> >
> >
> > In other words, 0.14
> >
> > feature.xml id=org.some.feature
> > pom.xml artifactId=org.some.feature =>  WARNING
> > pom.xml artifactId=org.some.feature.feature.group OK
> >
> >
> > In the next version
> >
> > feature.xml id=org.some.feature
> > pom.xml artifactId=org.some.feature =>  FAILURE
> > pom.xml artifactId=org.some.feature.feature.group OK
> >
> >
> > I really dislike using special groupId and I think there are cases where
> > assuming unique artifactId for entire reactor build will make things
> > easier.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Igor
> _______________________________________________
> tycho-dev mailing list
> tycho-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tycho-dev