| Re: [equinox-dev] [prov] Thoughts on the engine |
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to achieve, nor what
the problem is.
The SDK IU is an artificial root that we create at metadata generation time
to provide one entity to install and get the sdk. The presence of this IU
does not prevent you to define "James SDK" IU. You should be able to
compose and/or install directly from the other IUs since they are
completely independent.
For example if you were to install the "org.eclipse.core.runtime" IU you
would get it and all its prereq, thing that we were not able to do before.
PaScaL
James D Miles
<jdmiles@xxxxxx.c
om> To
Sent by: Equinox development mailing list
equinox-dev-bounc <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
es@xxxxxxxxxxx cc
Subject
08/16/2007 05:16 Re: [equinox-dev] [prov] Thoughts
PM on the engine
Please respond to
Equinox
development
mailing list
<equinox-dev@ecli
pse.org>
Do you mean that some operations must be done with the actual user
being
identified?
Yes, if you are sharing an install (multiuser), each user must be
configured separately. And to your point in <tangent 2> each user may
be managed differently.
<cotangent 2>
My thoughts were along these lines. Currently we have an IU with id
"sdk" in the sample. This sample provides no capabilities but only
list requirements to be installed. While it should remain an IU it
should be categorized by subclassing or creating an interface for all
of these: IU fragment, IU, etc. That would allow another abstraction
that manages a description ("sdk") of what can be installed. These
could me managed on a per user basis if that is what is wanted.
</cotangent>
(Embedded image moved to file: pic08335.gif)Inactive hide details for "Tim
Webb" <tim@xxxxxxxxxx>"Tim Webb" <tim@xxxxxxxxxx>
"Tim Webb"
<tim@trwebb.c
om>
Sent by: (Embedded image moved to file:
equinox-dev-b pic03420.gif)
ounces@eclips To
e.org (Embedded image moved
to file: pic31381.gif)
"Equinox development
08/16/2007 mailing list"
03:40 PM <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
g>
(Embedded image moved to file:
Please respond to pic15965.gif)
Equinox development mailing list cc
<equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> (Embedded image moved
to file: pic13816.gif)
(Embedded image moved to file:
pic31066.gif)
Subject
(Embedded image moved
to file: pic15739.gif)
Re: [equinox-dev]
[prov] Thoughts on the
engine
(Embedded image moved to file:
pic26985.gif)
(Embedded image moved to
file: pic08985.gif)
<tangent>
That said I must admit that I'm not super happy with this solution
since to
make such a "fetch only" operation usable, either the director would
have
to expose a "fetch" operation (but it would also have to expose a
"install"
operation to solve the other pb mentioned by James), or one would
have to
either author its own director (or at least extend the current one)
which
is something we want to avoid. In the light of recent discussions
with Tim
and others, I wonder if the director should not become just a planner
that
returns a bunch on operations that needs to be performed. The results
of
this planner would then be passed on to the engine and a "target"
phase
could be specified. For example:
EngineOperation[] op = director.install(ius, profile1)
engine(op, "fetch"); //This means do the operations but stop at
fetch.
</tangent>
This actually makes a lot of sense to me. It addresses multiple concerns
including being able to present to the user an accurate statement of how
much work needs to be performed, as well as allowing for much easier re-use
in server-side scenarios.
Do you mean that some operations must be done with the actual user
being
identified?
<tangent id="2">
While probably not where you were going with this one, mentioning per-user
operations reminded me of another flow we were planning to support in Maya
where some software would only be available to certain users. If we were
using user-aware repositories as part of the resolution process, would we
do the filtering inside the repository? If so, how would we handle this in
a multi-user scenario especially when a director/planner is being used
server-side? Ideally I'd like the flexibility of filtering which software
is available to which user, but currently the implementation / APIs do not
allow passing of any handle or request-identifier to the repositories to
aide in determining which software is available. Thoughts?
</tangent>_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
(See attached file: pic00393.gif)
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
Attachment:
pic08335.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
pic03420.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
pic31381.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
pic15965.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
pic13816.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
pic31066.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
pic15739.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
pic26985.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
pic08985.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
pic00393.gif
Description: GIF image
