You da' man, Tom!
-> richard
Jeff McAffer wrote:
Recently I was reviewing the Equinox project, the direction and the
community around it. One of the things that stood out for me is that
Tom Watson has been quietly leading vast swaths of the activity in
Equinox from the framework and servic
Congrats Tom.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/23/2008 11:36:40 PM:
>
> Recently I was reviewing the Equinox project, the direction and the
> community around it. One of the things that stood out for me is
> that Tom Watson has been quietly leading vast swaths of the activity
> in Equinox from the
This is like the greatest day ever. Tom is now a co-lead and idles on IRC.
Congrats!
Cheers,
---
Chris Aniszczyk | IBM Lotus | Eclipse Committer |
http://mea-bloga.blogspot.com | +1.860.839.2465
From:
Simon Kaegi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Equinox development mailing list
Date:
01/24/2008 09:0
I have made the changes in the p2 build to move to the latest version of
ECF.
Details are here:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=213381
The project set files have been updated and should be reloaded.
___
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-
I would like to run Equinox with OSGi security (PermissionAdmin,
ConditionalPermissionAdmin) enabled.
I read the quickstart guide here:
http://www.eclipse.org/equinox/documents/quickstart.php
I even found some reference to a property to set that should enable
security:
-
Declipse
.secur
From Ian in the committer list. There might be some input needed here
from p2 if we are going to produce installers etc.
Jeff
Dear Eclipse Committers
We would like to encourage more participation in the creation of the
packages created by the Eclipse Packaging Project. The goal is to 1)
e
The eclipse.security is only used by the org.eclipse.equinox.launcher jar.
The eclipse.security option is used by the launcher bootstrap code to
indicate that it should setup a policy which grants itself and the
framework ALLPermissions. Then it sets the java.security.manager to the
value of ecli
In case you do not read my blog or PlanetEclipse...
http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/jeff/2008/01/24/movin-on-well-sorta/
One thing to add the message is my new coordinates. My new email
address is at code9.com (the source of this message).
Note also that my bugzilla id will change as well.
how would that work on J2ME (CDC/Foundatoin)?
Jim Colson, Chief Architect - IBM Client Software
Distinguished Engineer
IBM Academy of Technology
Board Member - IT Architect Certification
11501 Burnet Rd. Austin, TX 78758
Ph 512-823-7357, Fax 512-838-0962
I seem to remember that someone was working on adding to support to our
download manager to favor downloading pack200'ed artifacts over canonical
ones.
Did that ever made it into the code?
Thx
PaScaL
___
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@eclipse.or
The support for pack200 is in a separate bundle which is not mandatory to
the proper functioning of p2.
Therefore even if the download manager was trying to get a pack200 version
of a given artifact (by checking in the table of content of available
artifacts,no round-trip to the server), it would n
>From the discussion we have had with Markus from the EPP project
(http://wiki.eclipse.org/Equinox_p2_Meeting_Week_Jan_14-18_2008#Ganymede.2C_EPP),
it seems that the "package configuration file" EPP takes as input contains
almost everything p2 needs to generate the product IU.
We will quickly see
The only support I know is in MirrorRequest#perform, but it is quite
rudimentary. Essentially if the repository is local, it prefers a
descriptor in canonical form (not packed/zipped), and if the repository is
remote it prefers a descriptor in non-canonical form. It doesn't have any
further sma
Just to clarify, the JRE level doesn't matter here. Unpack is performed by
a standalone unpack200 executable that doesn't require presence of a JVM.
You can run with a Foundation class library, plus a standalone unpack200
executable from Java 5 or Java 6.
Jim Colson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent
right but there is the practical detail that the exe you need comes with
Java 5 or later and the licensing does not likely allow you to ship just
the unpack200 exe. But that is a matter for someone's legal team. As
John says, the unpack support simply cares whether or not the exe is
there.
Just out of curiosity, why do you use the external binary to do the
pack/unpack and not the java.util.jar.Pack200 class? It seems to me that
a fragment that is EE dependent (require Java 1.5 or higher) would be
ideal here. Those who run lower then Java 5 simply would not have
pack200 which is k
16 matches
Mail list logo
