Comments on: platform.xml and MANAGED_ONLY http://aniszczyk.org/2007/08/27/platformxml-and-managed_only/ work. life. open source. diatribes. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chris Aniszczyk (zx) http://aniszczyk.org/2007/08/27/platformxml-and-managed_only/comment-page-1/#comment-420 Chris Aniszczyk (zx) Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:30:00 +0000 http://aniszczyk.org/2007/08/27/platformxml-and-managed_only/#comment-420 "For the IDE product this is exactly the behavior that is desired. Wild west free-for-all."<br/><br/>I disagree. If you're a proprietary product, IDE or not, you may want to be VERY careful which plug-ins may be included. For RCP applications, this may make sense, but working with clients, there have been cases where clients only want their approved plug-ins be used via their update site. “For the IDE product this is exactly the behavior that is desired. Wild west free-for-all.”

I disagree. If you’re a proprietary product, IDE or not, you may want to be VERY careful which plug-ins may be included. For RCP applications, this may make sense, but working with clients, there have been cases where clients only want their approved plug-ins be used via their update site.

]]> By: Chris Aniszczyk (zx) http://aniszczyk.org/2007/08/27/platformxml-and-managed_only/comment-page-1/#comment-2514 Chris Aniszczyk (zx) Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:30:00 +0000 http://aniszczyk.org/2007/08/27/platformxml-and-managed_only/#comment-2514 "For the IDE product this is exactly the behavior that is desired. Wild west free-for-all."I disagree. If you're a proprietary product, IDE or not, you may want to be VERY careful which plug-ins may be included. For RCP applications, this may make sense, but working with clients, there have been cases where clients only want their approved plug-ins be used via their update site. “For the IDE product this is exactly the behavior that is desired. Wild west free-for-all.”I disagree. If you’re a proprietary product, IDE or not, you may want to be VERY careful which plug-ins may be included. For RCP applications, this may make sense, but working with clients, there have been cases where clients only want their approved plug-ins be used via their update site.

]]> By: Jim Adams http://aniszczyk.org/2007/08/27/platformxml-and-managed_only/comment-page-1/#comment-419 Jim Adams Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:19:00 +0000 http://aniszczyk.org/2007/08/27/platformxml-and-managed_only/#comment-419 I think you answered the wrong question. I have to ask "Which product are we talking about?" For the IDE product this is exactly the behavior that is desired. Wild west free-for-all. Sometimes that isn't desirable as this can have unintended consequences on other plugins but still, the product allows for this. If, on the other hand, we are talking about an RCP product, then I have to wonder where they are getting their list of plugins to install from? If they are using the UpdateConfigurator then they have asked for this behavior. If they then don't want that behavior then they have to find another way of providing the list of plugins to the app. I think you answered the wrong question. I have to ask “Which product are we talking about?” For the IDE product this is exactly the behavior that is desired. Wild west free-for-all. Sometimes that isn’t desirable as this can have unintended consequences on other plugins but still, the product allows for this. If, on the other hand, we are talking about an RCP product, then I have to wonder where they are getting their list of plugins to install from? If they are using the UpdateConfigurator then they have asked for this behavior. If they then don’t want that behavior then they have to find another way of providing the list of plugins to the app.

]]> By: Jim Adams http://aniszczyk.org/2007/08/27/platformxml-and-managed_only/comment-page-1/#comment-2513 Jim Adams Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:19:00 +0000 http://aniszczyk.org/2007/08/27/platformxml-and-managed_only/#comment-2513 I think you answered the wrong question. I have to ask "Which product are we talking about?" For the IDE product this is exactly the behavior that is desired. Wild west free-for-all. Sometimes that isn't desirable as this can have unintended consequences on other plugins but still, the product allows for this. If, on the other hand, we are talking about an RCP product, then I have to wonder where they are getting their list of plugins to install from? If they are using the UpdateConfigurator then they have asked for this behavior. If they then don't want that behavior then they have to find another way of providing the list of plugins to the app. I think you answered the wrong question. I have to ask “Which product are we talking about?” For the IDE product this is exactly the behavior that is desired. Wild west free-for-all. Sometimes that isn’t desirable as this can have unintended consequences on other plugins but still, the product allows for this. If, on the other hand, we are talking about an RCP product, then I have to wonder where they are getting their list of plugins to install from? If they are using the UpdateConfigurator then they have asked for this behavior. If they then don’t want that behavior then they have to find another way of providing the list of plugins to the app.

]]>