| Re: [cdt-debug-dev] List of Plan items |
|
Hi Alain, I just wanted to understand if there was some important underlying requirement for excluding platform interfaces from the CDI layer, which would also affect the DSF design. DSF makes extensive use of Eclipse interfaces: IAdaptable, IStatus and well as others from OSGi, and platform debug. It was a conscious decision to go this way, and I was wondering if I missed anything :-) Cheers Pawel Alain Magloire wrote: From: cdt-debug-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-debug-dev- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pawel Piech Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:04 AM To: CDT Debug developers list Subject: Re: [cdt-debug-dev] List of Plan items Hi Alain, I feel I'm missing a bit of important CDT history here. What is the original reason why CDI interfaces don't have references to org.eclipse.* packages? Thanks PawelThe purpose of CDI was basically to the same as JDI (Java Debug Interface, define by Sun) for C. We did not follow the JDI because it did not fit our needs at that point. CDI did not extends the IDebugElement class or any org.eclipse.* class, it was completely standalone. The IDebugElement class extension was provided at higher level giving good isolation. But it turns out to be very confusing for a lot of people, claiming duplications, etc .. Think of this way, we were developing on Eclipse-1.0 with a continuously moving API/platform, providing stability by isolating the debugger was the number one objective in our minds. It was a good choice (with side effects) with the evolution of Eclipse 1.x, 2.x and 3 series. The history is much more convoluted but you get the idea 8-) So I'm curious to hear what Mikhail (or you) has in mind since I did not follow the recent in/out of the Debug API. _______________________________________________ cdt-debug-dev mailing list cdt-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-debug-dev |