Target platform vs. Buckminster headless installation [message #499813] |
Tue, 24 November 2009 09:30  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Thomas,
The problem with the target platform turned out to be related to the problem
I reported here a while ago: "RMAP vs. buckminster headless, who wins the
component resolution battle?".
The question is: How can I specify that buckminster headless should resolve
components using the target platform definition I imported, but not the
buckminster headless installation? Unfortunately buckminster chooses the
component with the highest version from either the target platform or the
buckminster installation. In the original thread you suggested to add
advisory nodes like this:
<cq:advisorNode namePattern=".*" componentType="eclipse.feature"
useTargetPlatform="false"/>
<cq:advisorNode namePattern=".*" componentType="osgi.bundle"
useTargetPlatform="false"/>
Unfortunately, that disables both the target platform, as well as the
buckminster installation as sources for features and bundles. Therefore I
would have to specify the target platform in the RMAP using an eclipse
import reader. Unfortunately, it seems that an eclipse installation or an
unzipped delta pack cannot be used by the import reader, because they do
not represent a p2 metadata repository.
Cheers,
Florian
--
DI Florian Hackenberger
florian@hackenberger.at
www.hackenberger.at
|
|
|
Re: Target platform vs. Buckminster headless installation [message #499889 is a reply to message #499813] |
Tue, 24 November 2009 13:37   |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Florian,
DI Florian Hackenberger wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> The problem with the target platform turned out to be related to the problem
> I reported here a while ago: "RMAP vs. buckminster headless, who wins the
> component resolution battle?".
>
There should never be a battle. Buckminster consults the target platform. The target platform is the
runtime by default. If it isn't, then the runtime is never consulted.
> The question is: How can I specify that buckminster headless should resolve
> components using the target platform definition I imported, but not the
> buckminster headless installation? Unfortunately buckminster chooses the
> component with the highest version from either the target platform or the
> buckminster installation. In the original thread you suggested to add
> advisory nodes like this:
>
> <cq:advisorNode namePattern=".*" componentType="eclipse.feature"
> useTargetPlatform="false"/>
> <cq:advisorNode namePattern=".*" componentType="osgi.bundle"
> useTargetPlatform="false"/>
>
> Unfortunately, that disables both the target platform, as well as the
> buckminster installation as sources for features and bundles.
This disables the target platform. Period. There are never two places involved.
> Therefore I
> would have to specify the target platform in the RMAP using an eclipse
> import reader. Unfortunately, it seems that an eclipse installation or an
> unzipped delta pack cannot be used by the import reader, because they do
> not represent a p2 metadata repository.
>
The trick is to define them as a target platform prior to resolution. They are both in 'runnable
state', i.e. features etc. has been unpacked, and as such, you can directly appoint them as a target
platform directory in a target platform definition.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
|
|
|
Re: Target platform vs. Buckminster headless installation [message #499923 is a reply to message #499889] |
Tue, 24 November 2009 14:30  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> There should never be a battle. Buckminster consults the target platform.
> The target platform is the runtime by default. If it isn't, then the
> runtime is never consulted.
Hi Thomas,
I just gave it another try with the mailapp example. It failed as well. Then
I had the idea that the delta pack could be out of date, since the last
automatic upgrade of the eclipse installation. I downloaded the 3.5.1 delta
pack and everything was fine. Thanks for your help!
Cheers,
Florian
--
DI Florian Hackenberger
florian@hackenberger.at
www.hackenberger.at
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04105 seconds