[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [p2-dev] IRequiredCapability internal?
|
It looks like in the worst case this information can be extracted from the IRequirement.getMatches() object by copying the helper methods extractNamespace, extractName, and extractRange from the RequiredCapability class. That would allow you to get the information while only accessing API methods.
However, if we know that *some* requirements can be expressed in the form namespace/name/range, then I'm not sure why we don't offer an API such as IRequiredCapability to obtain that information. That doesn't prevent us from having more general or specialized forms of requirements that are *not* represented as IRequiredCapability. If you have an IU that is known to be an OSGi bundle, then it seems reasonable to want to be able to introspect the metadata to find out things like the bundle/package imports via the p2 metadata API. I'm quite possibly missing something here though...
John
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Thomas M Houser
<tmhouser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not really. I'm charged with retargeting
our code to Eclipse 3.6 (formerly targeted to 3.5 provisional API). I
can only respond with generalities. We have build tooling for constructing
product offerings. This build tooling generates other metadata based
on p2 metadata. Therefore it reads p2 metadata and reasons about
its structure. I can't give you any details, but I'll ask the engineers
who use this API to respond.
In general, though, I think it is kind
of weird that you allow a client to construct a IRequiredCapability (via
MetadataFactory.createRequiredCapability()), but do not allow a client
to get the attributes of this concrete subclass.
Hi Thomas,
Given that an IRequirement no longer must contain name, namespace, and
range, but instead can be an arbitrary _expression_ applied on an IInstallableUnit,
perhaps we can help you find an alternative solution. Can you say something
about why you need access to the requirement internals?
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
On 03/09/2010 05:47 PM, Thomas M Houser wrote:
Pascal, in comment 3 of capilano work item 23579, you said:
3. Pascal Rapicault (archived), Feb
1, 2010, 7:13 PM
Only the following things will make it in the API:
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.metadata. IRequiredCapability
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.provisional.p2. director.IDirector
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.provisional.p2. director.IPlanner
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.provisional.p2. director.PlanExecutionHelper
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.provisional.p2. director.ProfileChangeRequest
org.eclipse.equinox.internal.provisional.p2. metadata.MetadataFactory
What's up with that? Can you please provide detailed instructions
on implementing an equivalent to isOptional() using getMin() and getMax()?
The javadoc present in the IRequirement class is just too overwhelming
(I'm being sarcastic :-).
Also, if it's really true that IRequiredCapability will not be API in 3.6,
can you also provide instructions on implementing equivalents to getName(),
getNamespace(), and getRange() using IRequirement API.
This got replaced by the getMin getMax on IRequirement.
You will also notice that IRequiredCapability is no longer API.
On 2010-03-08, at 9:10 PM, Thomas M Houser wrote:
In "eclipse-SDK-I20100217-1031-win32.zip", the isOptional() method
of IRequiredCapability was removed. This is a change from 3.6M5.
Where did this go? What should be used instead?
Good point. The work on MetadataFactory needs to be done.
<Mail Attachment.gif>Thomas M Houser
---22/01/2010 04:02:42 PM---I understand that there are potentially many
forms of IRequirement. That makes sense, but that does not mean that the
API prov
<Mail Attachment.gif>
From:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
Thomas M Houser <tmhouser@xxxxxxxxxx>
|
<Mail Attachment.gif>
To:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
P2 developer discussions <p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
<Mail Attachment.gif>
Date:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
22/01/2010 04:02 PM
|
<Mail Attachment.gif>
Subject:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
Re: [p2-dev] IRequiredCapability internal? |
I understand that there are potentially many forms of IRequirement. That
makes sense, but that does not mean that the API provided by IRequiredCapability
is not still useful to clients. They just need to be aware that this isn't
the only kind of IRequirement. For example, we create requirements via
MetadataFactory.createRequiredCapability(). How do we create concrete requirements
without an API?
IRequiredCapability was limiting in what it could express. For example
it could not express negation and or'ing, and it could only described dependencies
on something that had a namespace, a name and a version and we are striving
to express requirements and capabilities on other things (for example BundleExecutionEnvironment).
As such, to ensure for API evolution we have turned the too specific IRequiredCapability
into an IRequirement.
IProvidedCapability is still API, but it is very likely that it will either
be turned into something more generic, or be marked internal if we don't
have the time to make it API.
As for IRequirementChange the reference to IRequiredCapability is something
that we have still left to do (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=299506)
The situation of the API now is that we have tried to move all the types
that we needed to see made API in a final package for M5, however we still
have work to do to reach the final state for 3.6 (hopefully by M6).
If you have feedback, it is very much appreciated,
HTH
<Mail Attachment.gif>Thomas M Houser
---22/01/2010 03:23:08 PM---I'm migrating from Eclipse 3.5 to Eclipse 3.6
(I20100119-0800). Can someone explain why IRequiredCapability is now internal
in
<Mail Attachment.gif>
From:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
Thomas M Houser <tmhouser@xxxxxxxxxx>
|
<Mail Attachment.gif>
To:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
<Mail Attachment.gif>
Date:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
22/01/2010 03:23 PM
|
<Mail Attachment.gif>
Subject:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
[p2-dev] IRequiredCapability internal? |
I'm migrating from Eclipse 3.5 to Eclipse 3.6 (I20100119-0800). Can someone
explain why IRequiredCapability is now internal in 3.6 when it was provisional
API in 3.5? What is the rationale for making this internal? Why is IProvidedCapability
considered API when IRequiredCapability is not? Why does the IRequirementChange
API have a matches() method whose parameter type is IRequiredCapability
an internal API? _______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev