Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » B3 » do we need these requirement options
do we need these requirement options [message #521868] Fri, 19 March 2010 02:52 Go to next message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik LindbergFriend
Messages: 2501
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi,
I think we may need to handle the following requirement options in the
model:
- greedy
- optional
- multiple

At least when using a build unit to publish to p2 as it would otherwise
not be possible to specify those.

What do you think?

- henrik
Re: do we need these requirement options [message #521887 is a reply to message #521868] Fri, 19 March 2010 07:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Thomas Hallgren is currently offline Thomas HallgrenFriend
Messages: 3232
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
On 03/19/2010 03:52 AM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
> Hi,
> I think we may need to handle the following requirement options in the
> model:
> - greedy
> - optional
> - multiple
>
> At least when using a build unit to publish to p2 as it would otherwise
> not be possible to specify those.
>
> What do you think?
>
Greedy, definitely. And I think optional and multiple should be replace by integer min/max to match the (new) p2
requirement.

- thomas
Re: do we need these requirement options [message #521911 is a reply to message #521887] Fri, 19 March 2010 04:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik LindbergFriend
Messages: 2501
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
ok,
feel free to suggest some syntax for these, and thinking about p2
requirement syntax as well.

Currently, the syntax is:

"requires" ((NameSpace | "unit") '/')? name ('/' VersionRange) ';'

I can imagine adding keywords for greedy, max, min and optional and
declare these as modifiers (i.e. like private/public, final etc. to form

i.e. something like:

requires greedy max 3 optional ((NameSpace | "unit") '/')? name ('/'
VersionRange) ';'


but... feel free to suggest something.

- henrik

(and variations on that theme for multiple requirements).

On 3/19/10 8:44 AM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> On 03/19/2010 03:52 AM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I think we may need to handle the following requirement options in the
>> model:
>> - greedy
>> - optional
>> - multiple
>>
>> At least when using a build unit to publish to p2 as it would otherwise
>> not be possible to specify those.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
> Greedy, definitely. And I think optional and multiple should be replace
> by integer min/max to match the (new) p2 requirement.
>
> - thomas
Re: do we need these requirement options [message #522034 is a reply to message #521911] Fri, 19 March 2010 17:48 Go to previous message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik LindbergFriend
Messages: 2501
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Issue logged: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=306561
- henrik

On 3/19/10 10:20 AM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
> ok,
> feel free to suggest some syntax for these, and thinking about p2
> requirement syntax as well.
>
> Currently, the syntax is:
>
> "requires" ((NameSpace | "unit") '/')? name ('/' VersionRange) ';'
>
> I can imagine adding keywords for greedy, max, min and optional and
> declare these as modifiers (i.e. like private/public, final etc. to form
>
> i.e. something like:
>
> requires greedy max 3 optional ((NameSpace | "unit") '/')? name ('/'
> VersionRange) ';'
>
>
> but... feel free to suggest something.
Re: do we need these requirement options [message #603431 is a reply to message #521868] Fri, 19 March 2010 07:44 Go to previous message
Thomas Hallgren is currently offline Thomas HallgrenFriend
Messages: 3232
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
On 03/19/2010 03:52 AM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
> Hi,
> I think we may need to handle the following requirement options in the
> model:
> - greedy
> - optional
> - multiple
>
> At least when using a build unit to publish to p2 as it would otherwise
> not be possible to specify those.
>
> What do you think?
>
Greedy, definitely. And I think optional and multiple should be replace by integer min/max to match the (new) p2
requirement.

- thomas
Re: do we need these requirement options [message #603435 is a reply to message #521887] Fri, 19 March 2010 09:20 Go to previous message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik LindbergFriend
Messages: 2501
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
ok,
feel free to suggest some syntax for these, and thinking about p2
requirement syntax as well.

Currently, the syntax is:

"requires" ((NameSpace | "unit") '/')? name ('/' VersionRange) ';'

I can imagine adding keywords for greedy, max, min and optional and
declare these as modifiers (i.e. like private/public, final etc. to form

i.e. something like:

requires greedy max 3 optional ((NameSpace | "unit") '/')? name ('/'
VersionRange) ';'


but... feel free to suggest something.

- henrik

(and variations on that theme for multiple requirements).

On 3/19/10 8:44 AM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> On 03/19/2010 03:52 AM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I think we may need to handle the following requirement options in the
>> model:
>> - greedy
>> - optional
>> - multiple
>>
>> At least when using a build unit to publish to p2 as it would otherwise
>> not be possible to specify those.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
> Greedy, definitely. And I think optional and multiple should be replace
> by integer min/max to match the (new) p2 requirement.
>
> - thomas
Re: do we need these requirement options [message #603439 is a reply to message #603435] Fri, 19 March 2010 17:48 Go to previous message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik LindbergFriend
Messages: 2501
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Issue logged: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=306561
- henrik

On 3/19/10 10:20 AM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
> ok,
> feel free to suggest some syntax for these, and thinking about p2
> requirement syntax as well.
>
> Currently, the syntax is:
>
> "requires" ((NameSpace | "unit") '/')? name ('/' VersionRange) ';'
>
> I can imagine adding keywords for greedy, max, min and optional and
> declare these as modifiers (i.e. like private/public, final etc. to form
>
> i.e. something like:
>
> requires greedy max 3 optional ((NameSpace | "unit") '/')? name ('/'
> VersionRange) ';'
>
>
> but... feel free to suggest something.
Previous Topic:do we need these requirement options
Next Topic:Nested Custom Categories
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Dec 28 10:16:19 GMT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.08780 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software