[geclipse-dev] AW: [g-Eclipse] AW: [g-Eclipse] AW: [g-Eclipse] M3 Releas

["Stuempert, Mathias IWR" <mathias.stuempert@xxxxxxxxxx>]

It's me again,

Some further comments concerning S3. As you all know we will have a
build on Friday for the EclipseCon DVD. As we already voted against the
current M3 build I suggest making the M3 build on Friday and therefore
taking this build also for the EclipseCon. I think it does not make any
sense to provide a second build then.

As we definitely will show the S3 stuff at the EclipseCon the M3 would
then of course have to contain the S3 plug-ins. Therefore I would rather
go for testing and bug-fixing now than for discussing if we should
include S3. It is there, it is very stable for a first shot and we
should present it to the community.

> Well, the same behaviour as for any other EFS implementation (besides
> the fact that those already show error messages). I think your error
was
> just to forget the leading "/" in the path name, i.e. the bucket name.
> Nevertheless, directly mounting buckets may not be a good idea at the
> moment. So if we decide to include S3 into the release I will either
> remove the field for directly mounting buckets or have another look
into
> this part of the code.

I have tested this and committed a bug fix. If you are now entering an
access key id and "/" as bucket name you should be able to "create a
temporary connection" and to choose a bucket afterwards. Of course you
should also be able to directly mount a bucket by entering its name, but
please do not forget about the "/" ;-) Will provide an info message soon
if the "/" is missing.

> Therefore trying to create a
> folder within a folder will fail within g-Eclipse's S3 implementation
> (still have to provide better error messages).

Better error message is in HEAD.

> Furthermore creating a
> file directly in your connection, i.e. outside any bucket will also
fail
> (also here I have to provide better error messages).

Still pending.

> Another issue with
> creating folders/buckets refers to the allowed names of a bucket.

Better error message is in HEAD.

All in all I think it is no problem to get things stable, at least as
long as people test things and give some input like Pawel did.

Thanks, Mathias