| Best feature packaging strategy [message #154203] |
Fri, 07 November 2003 13:43  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hello,
I wonder what is the best packaging stategy for features contents with
platform specific plugins/fragments.
Given a set of plugins P1, P2 and some fragments P1.win32, P1.linux, ... for
P1 with native code, how do I
design a fature F with plugins P1 & P2 so that the update manager will only
download the P1.xxx fragment?
Because there is no platform information attached to plugins, the only
practical way seems to create as many
features as the number of of supported platforms.
This means one have to create features F.win32(P1,P1.win32,P2),
F.linux(P1,P1.linux,P2), etc.
Is this is correct, or a better stategy is recommended ?
Thanks
--
Christophe
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Best feature packaging strategy [message #154570 is a reply to message #154203] |
Sun, 09 November 2003 10:32  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: dorian.birsan.net
"Christophe Avare" <eclipse@holongate.org> wrote in message
news:bogp13$d9b$1@eclipse.org...
> Hello,
>
> I wonder what is the best packaging stategy for features contents with
> platform specific plugins/fragments.
>
> Given a set of plugins P1, P2 and some fragments P1.win32, P1.linux, ...
for
> P1 with native code, how do I
> design a fature F with plugins P1 & P2 so that the update manager will
only
> download the P1.xxx fragment?
>
> Because there is no platform information attached to plugins, the only
> practical way seems to create as many
> features as the number of of supported platforms.
> This means one have to create features F.win32(P1,P1.win32,P2),
> F.linux(P1,P1.linux,P2), etc.
>
> Is this is correct, or a better stategy is recommended ?
This is correct, but I think you can used optional included features as
well:
Create a feature F (P1, P2) that includes optional features F.win32
(P1.win32), F.linux(P1.linux), etc.
-Dorian
>
> Thanks
> --
> Christophe
>
>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04236 seconds
Home