[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tycho-user] [Tycho Users] Request for Comments: Migration path to new packaging type for p2-enabled products

I wanted to have an option to disable p2 metadata generation for
eclipse-products, but don't remember if we agreed on this or not.
Otherwise, this matches what I remember.


On 11-04-08 12:29 PM, Oberlies, Tobias wrote:
We had discussed this at EclipseCon, and I also wanted to share the results here.

The behaviour of eclipse-application and the planned eclipse-product [1] differs in case of products that are not "valid" (according to the product editor's validate button), i.e. products that list bundles but not all of their dependencies. In that situation, eclipse-product adds the missing dependencies, whereas eclipse-application creates an installation with bundles that cannot be resolved&  started. We consider the former to be the better default.

Also eclipse-product does not imply that the installed product has to contain the p2 bundles. It only includes p2 metadata that would allow updates through an external program (the p2 director). If that option is not desired, the update metadata may be removed without breaking the installation.

All-in-all, there are not sufficient reasons for having two implementations product support in Tycho. eclipse-application will be deprecated as soon as eclipse-product is implemented - and the implementation will be removed eventually, but certainly before a 1.0 release.

@Igor, Jan: Does this match your memories of our discussion?


[1] https://docs.sonatype.org/display/TYCHO/Discussion+on+eclipse-repository+packaging+type+clean-up (updated today)

-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Fedorenko [mailto:igor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 17 March 2011 23:45
To: tycho-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Tycho Users] Request for Comments: Migration path to new
packaging type for p2-enabled products

I talked to developers who just want to ship new version of their app
whenever they need to. And they want to be certain that the app stays
the same from release to release. And I honestly don't see why Tycho
should force p2 onto its users.

As far as default behaviour, I think it should depend on rcp contents.
If the app includes p2 bits, then we generate is the p2 way. If the app
does not include p2, then we don't force it. We can probably add a flag
to the packaging mojo to force p2 on/off too.


On 11-03-17 03:27 PM, Lohre, Jan wrote:
Hi Igor,

what is the use case you see for an Eclipse RCP that is not p2-enabled?
There will be no update or install of new features possible.

What would be the default result of this packaging type? Most likely (as
far as I see it) people will want to have a p2-enabled rcp.

Kind regards, Jan

-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Fedorenko [mailto:ifedorenko@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Donnerstag, 17. März 2011 18:19
To: tycho-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Tycho Users] Request for Comments: Migration path to new
packaging type for p2-enabled products

I'd like to propose 2a -- replace "eclipse-application" with implementation that can produce both p2-enabled and "plain" rcp applications. I don't think we need "eclipse-application-old".


On 11-03-17 12:19 PM, Oberlies, Tobias wrote:
Tycho developers and users -

As announced before [1], we want to introduce a new packaging type for
building p2-enabled products and remove that functionality from eclipse-
repository [2]. While the technical details are mostly clear, we haven't
decided on how this packaging type shall be introduced.

The new packaging type shall replace the current eclipse-application
implementation. There are two options how this could be done:

1. By assigning a new name to the new packaging type, e.g.
"eclipse-product". The current eclipse-application packaging type would be
deprecated and eventually be removed.
2. By replacing "eclipse-application". To avoid the risk of
blockers, the current implementation would remain available as fall-back
under the name "eclipse-application-old".

What is your opinion on this?

I think that we should go for option 2, because it makes it more clear
what we want people to use. I don't want the confusion again that we
caused with eclipse-repository and eclipse-update-site. Also, the new
packaging type will not need to mature after it has been created (as this
was/is the case with eclipse-repository) because it will just be factored
out of the eclipse-repository implementation.

Regards Tobias

[1] http://software.2206966.n2.nabble.com/Request-for-Comments-How-to-
[2] https://docs.sonatype.org/display/TYCHO/Discussion+on+eclipse-

tycho-user mailing list