Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox initializer

[Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

What version of the VM are you using?  My guess is that the p2 is using a data structure like a Set that perhaps had more predictable sorting order in earlier VM releases and now has become unpredictable (which is perfectly fine since Set has no defined order).  The order things are installed is controlled by the simple configurator in p2 [1].  But my point is that I would not expect the shared user to be using -clean when they launch their instance.  I would expect them to avoid using -clean so that they can take full advantage of the pre-installed bundles from the read-only configuration area that got primed by the initializer.

Tom

[1] http://git.eclipse.org/c/equinox/rt.equinox.p2.git/tree/bundles/org.eclipse.equinox.simpleconfigurator


Krzysztof Daniel ---01/04/2013 04:10:31 AM---So I tested running eclipse -clean just after build, to verify the order of bundles - and it looks l

From: Krzysztof Daniel <kdaniel@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: equinox-dev <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 01/04/2013 04:10 AM
Subject: Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox initializer
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

So I tested running eclipse -clean just after build, to verify the order
of bundles - and it looks like that calling that before initializer has
no effect - bundle numbers are exactly the same.

What I have noticed that in my original Eclipse (platform only) SWT has
number 153, but when I install more things using dropins, SWT gets
bigger numbers (774, 759).

I think that bundles get consistent numbers within one configuration
(shared or user) but consistency between those two is not maintained.

What is the best place to start code investigation/patching?

Regards,
Chris

_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev