James Miles wrote on 08/16/2007 05:16:27 PM:
> <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>
Not sure what subclassing or interfacing would do for managing things on a
per user basis. FYI, to date we have explicitly been avoiding type
hierarchies in favour of aggregation in the metadata design. While it is
not without pitfalls, we believe that this has brought and will continue
to bring big benefits in the areas of simplicity, usability and
flexibility.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
