| do we need these requirement options [message #521868] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 22:52  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
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 #521911 is a reply to message #521887] |
Fri, 19 March 2010 00:36  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
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 13:48 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
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 03:44 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
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 05:20 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
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 13:48 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03927 seconds
Home