Team and linked resources
A project may contain resources that are not located within the project's directory
in the local file system. These resources are referred to as
Consequences for Repository Providers
Linked resources can pose particular challenges for repository providers which
operate directly against the file system. This is a consequence of the fact
that linked resources by design do not exist in the immediate project directory
tree in the file system.
Providers which exhibit the following characteristics may be affected by linked
- Those which call out to an external program that then operates directly
against the file system.
- Those which are implemented in terms of IResource but assume that all the
files/folders in a project exist as direct descendents of that single rooted
In the first case, lets assume the user picks a linked resource and tries to perform
a provider operation on it. Since the provider calls a command line client, we can assume that
the provider does something equivalent to first calling
feeding the resulting file system location as an argument to the command line program. If the resource in question is
a linked resource, this will yield a file/folder outside of the project directory tree. Not all
command line clients may expect and be able to handle this case.
In short, if your provider ever gets the file system location of a resource, it will likely require
extra work to handle linked resources.
The second case is quite similar in that there is an implicit assumption that the structure of
the project resources is 1:1 with that of the file system files/folders. In general,
a provider could be in trouble if they mix IResource and java.io.File operations.
For example, for links, the parent of
is not the same
as the java.io.File's parent and code which assumes these to be the same will fail.
It was important that the introduction of linked resources did not inadvertently
break existing providers. Specifically, the concern was for providers that reasonably
assumed that the local file system structure mirrored the project structure.
Consequently, by default linked resources can not be added to projects that
are mapped to such a provider. Additionally, projects that contain linked resources
can not by default be shared with that provider.
Strategies for Handling Linked Resources
In order to be "link friendly", a provider should allow projects
with linked resources to be version controlled, but can disallow the version
controlling of linked resources themselves.
A considerably more complex solution would be to allow the versioning of the
actual linked resources, but this should be discouraged since it brings with
it complex scenarios (e.g. the file may already be version controlled under
a different project tree by another provider). Our recommendation therefore
is to support version controlled projects which contain non-version controlled
Technical Details for Being "Link Friendly"
Repository provider implementations can be upgraded to support linked resources
by overriding the
method to return true. Once this is done, linked resources
will be allowed to exist in projects shared with that repository provider. However,
the repository provider must take steps to ensure that linked resources are
handled properly. As mentioned above, it is strongly suggested that repository
providers ignore all linked resources. This means that linked resources (and
their children) should be excluded from the actions supported by the repository
provider. Furthermore, the repository provider should use the default move and
delete behavior for linked resources if the repository provider implementation
overrides the default
Team providers can use
to determine if a resource is a link or is the descendant of a link.
Repository providers should ignore any resource for which the above code evaluates