|
Description:
|
JBDS SOA site includes com.jboss.jbds.bpel.feature, which in turn INCLUDES:
{code}
<includes id="org.eclipse.bpel.feature" version="1.0.1.v20120619-1916-H189-CI" match="compatible" />
<includes id="org.eclipse.bpel.common.feature" version="1.0.1.v20120619-1916-H189-CI" match="compatible" />
<includes id="org.eclipse.bpel.apache.ode.runtime.feature" version="1.0.1.v20120619-1916-H189-CI" match="compatible" />
{code}
and
{code}
<plugin id="org.jboss.tools.bpel.runtimes" download-size="49" install-size="93" version="0.8.0.v20120619-2251-H6-CR1-SOA" unpack="false" />
<plugin id="com.jboss.jbds.bpel.examples" download-size="2" install-size="2" version="1.0.0.v20120622-1559-H10-CR1-SOA" />
{code}
Whereas the JBT SOA site includes org.jboss.tools.bpel.feature, which in turn REQUIRES (not INCLUDES):
{code}
<import feature="org.eclipse.bpel.feature" version="1.0.0" match="compatible" />
<import feature="org.eclipse.bpel.common.feature" version="1.0.0" match="compatible" />
<import feature="org.eclipse.bpel.apache.ode.runtime.feature" version="1.0.0" match="compatible" />
{code}
and includes:
{code}
<plugin id="org.jboss.tools.bpel.runtimes" download-size="49" install-size="93" version="0.8.0.v20120619-2251-H6-CR1-SOA" unpack="false" />
{code}
My question is therefore, shouldn't both sites INCLUDE the Eclipse BPEL features, rather than simply DEPENDING on them?
The effect of the above issue is that BPEL can't be installed via offline zip-only installation, because the Eclipse BPEL bits need to be resolved from http://download.jboss.org/jbosstools/updates/indigo/soa-tooling/SR2/, which is referenced within the site's metadata. Installation works fine online -- do we care about offline installation?
|
