Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cdt-debug-dev] List of Plan items
John,
 
I suggested it in case you needed this feature to work with the current version. Otherwise, I agree that ICDIObject should extend IAdapatable. My new code looks ugly with all these instanceof, because I am avoiding the usage of interfaces like ICDITarget, ICDIThread, etc... 
And you are right, the historical reason is no longer relevant, so there is no restriction to use Eclipse-specific interfaces.
 
Mikhail
From: cdt-debug-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-debug-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell
Sent: 17 October 2006 14:36
To: CDT Debug developers list; CDT Debug developers list
Subject: RE: [cdt-debug-dev] List of Plan items

Mikhail,

The motivation for supporting IAdaptable is not to use it in the CDO back-end (although one may certainly do so), but to use it in the CDT code. That is, with it, we can stop using instanceof to check for interfaces. I suppose we could have CDT use instance of to get the IAdaptable, but that doesn't really close the gap all the way.

As for the historical reason...surely, that is no longer a relevant goal, is it? I.e., four year-old uncertainties shouldn't restrict us today.

John

At 07:37 AM 10/17/2006, Mikhail Khodjaiants wrote:
John,
 
I don't know if my answers will satisfy you, but I'll try.
1. If you need IAdaptable you can add it to your implementation and check if your object is instance of IAdaptable.
2. Regarding the history, the idea was to create a pure (non Eclipse) interface. Eclipse wasn't very stable at that time and the Debug API had just changed very seriously (Eclipse 1.0 -> 2.0).
 
Regards,
Mikhail
From: cdt-debug-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [ mailto:cdt-debug-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell
Sent: 17 October 2006 13:23
To: CDT Debug developers list; CDT Debug developers list
Subject: RE: [cdt-debug-dev] List of Plan items

At 12:58 PM 10/16/2006, Alain Magloire wrote:
I do not see any difficulty except that it will break backward compatibility
but since this is targeting a major release, it should not be a problem.

Hm. I'd like to stop for a second and discuss this point. Is it true that we should be OK with breaking CDI compatibility in 4.0? We're working on various features (which we will contribute for 4.0) where we go out of the way to not break compatibility, by, e.g., introducing an ICDIThread2. If we're looking at breaking compatibility anyway, then there's no point in use going this messier route.

The other thing, is that we did not want to bring org.eclipse.* namespace in
to the interface so we could;

I'm with Pawel--in need of a history lesson. Why is this?

John

--

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.
_______________________________________________
cdt-debug-dev mailing list
cdt-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-debug-dev

--

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.

Back to the top