|
Good catch this is indeed not intended.
However I don't think it matters since PDE will resolve this to
only one version.
On 12/05/2014 4:06 PM, Scott Lewis wrote:
Hi Pascal,
I noticed that the engine.target that you attached has this IU
<unit id="org.eclipse.equinox.p2.transport.ecf"
version="0.0.0"/>
listed *twice*. At first look this doesn't seem right...i.e.
that it's listed twice...although maybe it doesn't matter...if
it doesn't matter then please ignore.
Thanks,
Scott
On 5/12/2014 1:58 AM, Pascal Rapicault wrote:
Hi
Kai,
p2 does not offer any support for Concierge. That said I'm
attaching a target definition called engine.target that contains
the bundles required to just get the engine going on Equinox
(note that you will need to wait for tonight's I build to be
available because when trying to set this up I realized that
there was a missing optional flag on an import package (http://git.eclipse.org/c/equinox/rt.equinox.p2.git/commit/?id=445e1dbcd4a4fa72662d0455c2b4e325b8037a67)).
Trying to use this target definition against Kepler would work
but it would work but would bring sat4j and the director (but
they would not be used at runtime).
An even lighter way would be to just use simpleconfigurator (and
the manipulator) to read and write the bundles.info file (see
configurator.target). However in this case, it would be your
code responsibility to download the jars, store them somewhere,
and finally update the bundles.info. So now you may ask why
bother with bundles.info? Because you need a way to do the
install and update without disturbing the running system, and
these 2 bundles, by letting the framework run undisturbed
provide just that. And btw, iirc, these two bundles would run on
concierge unmodified.
Now how to use the engine on concierge?
There are two ways:
- Provide an implementation of the frameworkadmin service to
deal with concierge. This service is abstracting behind an
interface the format on disk of the various configuration files
that are specific to a fwk. For example frameworkadmin.equinox
takes care of the details of reading and writing the various
files dealt with by equinox (config.ini, eclipse.ini,
bundles.info (through the simpleconfigurator bundles))
- Provide a touchpoint implementation specific for concierge. In
this case you create a custom touchpoint that only cover your
needs and can do everything you need :) If you wanted to be able
to reuse the metadata published into the p2 repositories (to be
specific, the touchpoing actions like setStartLevel,
installBundle, etc.) you would need to provide actions that
cater for this but this is not complicated.
In any even, some code would have to be written
HTH
Pascal
On 10/05/2014 3:23 PM, Kai Kreuzer wrote:
Hi Pascal,
For small devices, you most likely
don't want p2 dependency resolution (or any other) to run on
the device because it will likely be too much computation.
However if you still want a transactional installation you
could go by using the p2 engine to perform the download and
the installation in the runtime. Then how the engine gets
the list of IU to install / uninstall / update is an
implementation detail :) For example you could use the OMA
DM from OSGi (not sure how it would work with the LWM2M
server), or implement something custom where the device
contacts a server, the server does the resolution and
returns the list of things to install, or use remote
service, ... I'm sure there are many other ways to do this
and these are just things that I know could be made to work.
As Jens, I am also looking for a very lightweight update
mechanism for Eclipse SmartHome. What you describe sounds like
a good option - moving the dependency resolution to the server
and just sending the runtime the list of things to install.
What is the minimal set of bundles required for the plain p2
engine to run on e.g. Concierge?
Best regards,
Kai
Am 10 May 2014 um 19:21 schrieb Pascal Rapicault <pascal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
HI Jens,
Sorry for the late reply. Find below more details
On 29/04/2014 3:58 AM, Jens Reimann wrote:
Hello Pascal,
Thanks for your answers.
We already start Eclipse without the native launcher in
most cases.
Wrapped by a Python script to find the correct jar.
However you
sometimes get some native bundles in there. I am not sure
if this is
Equinox or the Eclipse Runtime though.
The eclipse.exe companion jar comes to mind (e.g.
equinox.launcher_win32.win32) and it may be brought in by
some features you depend on but equinox itself has no native
dependencies.
For P2 I find it rather hard to find
god starting points for alternative
solutions. I think it does what it is intended to do, and
it does it
good. But you pretty soon get lost when it comes to
alternative
launching and provisioning ways (beside the Eclipse IDE).
I don't blame
anyone, I know how hard it is to write documentation ;-)
Some of these other starting points are not documented
because they never got beyond the prototype stage a few
years ago because nobody ended up need them.
Also is the whole Eclipse way a bit
more powerful than plain OSGi. As
far as I know OSGi proposes OBR for provisioning. However
I did find no
support for that in Equinox or P2. I think it was Felix
that allowed
installing bundles directly from Maven repositories, which
would also be
an alternative way.
If you are talking about OBR as found in Felix, know
that it is not more standard than p2 is.... What has been
standardized a couple years ago is a repository format, a
service to access repositories and an API to perform
dependency resolution. This is far from solving the problem
of downloading bundles and then installing them in a
transactional way in your runtime.
I also have to admit that I am not
sure what the best way actually is
for small devices. On the one hand you want to be flexible
and only
install the bundles that you need. It may be nice to do
this manually
("clicking" together your system with dependencies). On
the other hand
if you have 100s of devices and every device is special
you don't want
to maintain this manually.
For small devices, you most likely don't want p2
dependency resolution (or any other) to run on the device
because it will likely be too much computation. However if
you still want a transactional installation you could go by
using the p2 engine to perform the download and the
installation in the runtime. Then how the engine gets the
list of IU to install / uninstall / update is an
implementation detail :) For example you could use the OMA
DM from OSGi (not sure how it would work with the LWM2M
server), or implement something custom where the device
contacts a server, the server does the resolution and
returns the list of things to install, or use remote
service, ... I'm sure there are many other ways to do this
and these are just things that I know could be made to work.
HTH
Pascal
But I guess all this should be
subject to a different post :)
And yes "more independence from Equinox in your
application" correct.
Jens
On 04/27/2014 04:17 AM, Pascal Rapicault wrote:
Hi Jens
Answer embedded.
On 24/04/2014 4:52 AM, Jens Reimann wrote:
Hello Pascal,
I don't want to sound negative, but from the viewpoint
of Eclipse SCADA
we are pretty happy with Equinox ;-)
But we also learned, the hard way, that Equinox seems
to make a lot of
"special things". That might be easier at first, but
creates problems
when other OSGi containers become a topic. At the
moment we are not able
to deploy to other OSGi containers since we need P2
and EMF
For EMF we really do need EMF. But for P2, we only
require a some sort
of build -> provision toolchain. Which is Maven
Tycho (p2) -> P2
Director at the moment.
Our long term goal is to also have other, more pure,
OSGi containers.
Also not needing any native code in order to launch
the framework. And
for this we would like to use technology coming from
the Eclipse
eco-system.
The framework can be started w/o the native
launcher. For example
you can start the Eclipse IDE by running java -jar
plugins/org.eclipse.equinox.launcher_....jar and you can
also directly
start equinox itself in a similar way (java -jar
org.eclipse.osgi_...jar). You can also see code
embedding Equinox in
Tycho.
For this we would need
Declarative Services (DS) and some sort of
provision mechanism. P2 is a bit bulky, but works fine
for our case. We
do use the P2 director to assemble our applications
(depending from the
System Configuration the user created). This done on
either the
configuration machine or the target machine. There is
no "online
update". So if we have a system configuration with 10
servers and each
server has 2 different applications, all applications
are provisioned
using the P2 director from the initial set of P2
repositories.
It is true that p2 is a bit bulky and is currently
known to only
run on Equinox. However p2 has been designed to run and
provision
other frameworks. In fact back when we started we were
able to
provision Felix. At this point I don't know exactly what
it would take
to make that work again, but I think this is in the real
of
possibilities.
The other thing you may be interested in is in
knowing that there
has been designs and prototypes done in p2 to make it
work "after the
fact". Meaning that you would not need to have the p2
folder and all
that in your application. Instead p2 would be able to
reason about the
currently installed bundle and take it from there to
perform the
installation (still bringing transactionality and
dependency resolution).
However we also see a shift at
the moment from this deployment scheme,
to a more distributed scheme. In the the past we had
two big servers,
and that's it. At the moment systems go up to 20
different nodes which
are (compared to then) less powerful. And we now start
to have ARM based
devices which will have even less performance and
greater numbers.
So in the end the three most important reasons for us
to move to a
different OSGi container are:
-) Better provisioning
Maybe a topic of the p2-dev mailing list, but I
would be
interested in knowing what are the criteria for a better
provisioning.
-) Less (or better no) native
dependencies (launcher)
See note above.
-) Better compatibility with
OSGi
I m assume you mean more independence from Equinox
in your
application, or do you have something else in mind
Thanks
Pascal
Jens
On 04/23/2014 06:19 PM, Pascal Rapicault wrote:
Hi,
Since Concierge has been released, I noticed a lot
of interest from
the variou IoT projects to move to concierge from
Equinox and I would
like to understand the motivation of such a move? I
can obviously get
the size argument, but is there more to it?
Thanks
Pascal
_______________________________________________
iot-wg mailing list
iot-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
_______________________________________________
iot-wg mailing list
iot-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
_______________________________________________
iot-wg mailing list
iot-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
_______________________________________________
iot-wg mailing list
iot-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
_______________________________________________
iot-wg mailing list
iot-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
_______________________________________________
iot-wg mailing list
iot-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
_______________________________________________
iot-wg mailing list
iot-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
_______________________________________________
iot-wg mailing list
iot-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
|
