<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi all,<br>
<br>
As I am working on <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-8838">https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-8838</a> (add
source features to build), I noticed this bug in the mechanics we
want to use: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=374663">https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=374663</a>
(tycho-source-feature-plugin does not resolve remote source
features). But I also noticed that some of you (namely AS, BPEL,
jBPM & JSF) do use included features in your features.<br>
Included features are a kind of anti-pattern for us. The "inclusion"
is a very strict relationship that is resolved at build-time and
that locks version for features. Included features have static
versions when it comes to installing and this can be a source of p2
screed. I think you can always replace this "inclusion" relationship
by a "dependency" relationship in your feature.xml. Dependencies are
resolved at install-time, and it allow people to perform updates
without pain.<br>
<br>
I'm totally in favor of replacing inclusions by dependencies. I will
do it for the components listed above. However, I may miss a point
that could justify the inclusion over the dependency. If yes, please
tell me quickly why you did made that choice and why it wouldn't
work with dependencies.<br>
I'm looking for concrete and current issues you have met with
dependencies that are solved by inclusion.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Mickael Istria<br>
Eclipse developer at <a href="http://www.jboss.org/tools">JBoss,
by Red Hat</a><br>
<a href="http://mickaelistria.wordpress.com">My blog</a> - <a
href="http://twitter.com/mickaelistria">My Tweets</a></div>
</body>
</html>