Hello Jason,
On Apr 5, 2009, at 1:09 , Jason van Zyl wrote:
Equinox p2 was designed to replace the aging Update Manager in
Eclipse. It focusses on installing Eclipse-based applications from
scratch and updating them and can be extended to manage other types
of artifacts. If you look at the
I know the OBR specification was written years ago, and I'm aware
Felix shipped with an implementation of it. As I said Oleg and I
looked at it. I honestly just found p2 more useful and couldn't find
any real examples of anyone using OBR.
I don't know what happened in OSGi land and I
On 5-Apr-09, at 2:46 AM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
Hello Jason,
On Apr 5, 2009, at 1:09 , Jason van Zyl wrote:
Equinox p2 was designed to replace the aging Update Manager in
Eclipse. It focusses on installing Eclipse-based applications from
scratch and updating them and can be extended to
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Jason van Zyl jvan...@sonatype.com wrote:
On 5-Apr-09, at 2:46 AM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
Hello Jason,
On Apr 5, 2009, at 1:09 , Jason van Zyl wrote:
Equinox p2 was designed to replace the aging Update Manager in
Eclipse. It focusses on installing
I'm suggesting that you two groups figure out how to work together on
a very hard problem.
I'm also saying that you are unlikely to out do the 5 man years in p2
already.
As I said in the previous email if you want to make a competing system
that's fine. But don't couch the proposal as
I'm not sure I understand what your problem with this proposal is
exactly but I sure would like to. Let me try to get some things clear
in order to be able to get to the bottom of this. Don't let any
previous comments side-track you and lets try to focus on the
proposal:
I don't see where the
I have no problem with it per se. You guys should go for it. It's your
effort and I'm not trying stop you but only draw some attention to the
surrounding environment. I think the proposal should attempt to be a
little more clear about but that's was a request not something I was
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Jason van Zyl jvan...@sonatype.com wrote:
As I said in the previous email if you want to make a competing system
that's fine. But don't couch the proposal as something that's new and hasn't
been addressed elsewhere because it has.
Jason,
I don't know why you
There's nothing for me to be insincere about. Beyond providing some
context for most people that don't know I am not going to expend any
effort on implementation, but I would be happy to talk about the
problem of provisioning which is why I gave a +1. So it's in the hands
of those that
