[izpack-devel] mutually exclusive packs

[Bartz, Klaus]

Hi Vladimir,
I think both possitions are possible. If I have no
docu, I assume a behavior like I would implement it.
Rest context related.
You know, we have some features where the documentation is not
optimal. I think we should not do it at new features.

Cheers 

Klaus

>-----Original Message-----
>From: izpack-devel-bounces at lists.berlios.de
>[mailto:izpack-devel-bounces at lists.berlios.de]On Behalf Of Vladimir
>Ralev
>Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:18 PM
>To: izpack-devel at lists.berlios.de
>Subject: Re: [izpack-devel] mutually exclusive packs
>
>
>The user should simply be advised to do:
>pack1 excludes (pack2 and pack3)
>pack2 excludes (pack3 and pack1)
>pack3 excludes (pack1 and pack2)
>

That's the problem with the docu... You know it because you have
implement it and I will show into the sources if I get a problem.
But many user do not like the hint "the sources are the best
documentation".
Therefore my request for a docu from the developer.

>I think the problem with your "shortcut"-syntax is that the graph may 
>contain many cycles like:
>
>pack1 excludes (pack2 and pack4)
>pack2 excludes pack3
>pack3 excludes pack1
>pack4 excludes pack3
>
>or even worse...
>
>Of course I can implement transitive exclusion (like the 
>transitive dependencies) - if (pack1 excludes pack2) AND 
>(pack2 excludes pack3) THEN (pack1 excludes (pack2 and pack3)).
>
>In this case however I will disallow *any* cycles in the exclusion 
>graph, because the recursion will go forever. I personally think that 
>the exclusions are better without transitive traversal, but if 
>you want 
>something else I will do it.
>
>Another useful syntactical shortcut would be to implicitly create the 
>symmetric exclude - if (pack1 excludes pack2) THEN automatically do 
>(pack2 excludes pack1), but this breaks the declarative symmetry?
>

I tend to support implicit symmetry.
May be it breaks the declarative symmetry, but it suppress an 
asymmetric execution.
selection of pack2 deselects pack1 but selection of pack1 do not
deselect pack2.

>PS. I found a bug in the code I sent you (packs with no 
>"excludes" tags 
>cause exceptions), I will be making more changes too.
>

Nice. Additional if you declare a nonexistent pack as excludes a
null pointer exception raises in the installer. May be a verification
at compile time will be better.

> I am waiting for your comments and will send the final code soon.
>
>Bartz, Klaus wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir,
>> today I have tested a little bit.
>> If the exclusion will be declared as full cross references 
>> it works fine.
>>
>> But what should be happen with
>> pack1 excludes pack2
>> pack2 excludes pack3
>> pack3 excludes pack1
>>
>> If I select first pack1 and then pack2 both are selected.
>> If I select first pack2 and then pack1 only pack1 is selected.
>>
>> Not a real szenario? May be, but I am certain that someone
>> does it in the future and calls why this not work as he/she assumed.
>> Therefore we should clear this in front.
>> I tend to say that an implicit backward exclusion should be
>> performed; means
>> If I selct first pack1 and then pack2 only pack2 is selected.
>> If I selct first pack2 and then pack1 only pack1 is selected.
>>
>> What is your meaning, what say the others?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Klaus
>>
<snip>
>_______________________________________________
>izpack-devel mailing list
>izpack-devel at lists.berlios.de
>https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/izpack-devel
>