[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: breaking changes in 4.0 for CDI (was: RE: [cdt-debug-dev] Lis t of Plan items)
|
Coming to this discussion late but I wanted to share my feedback on the two
issues:
Backward compatibility in CDT 4.0: I don't think 100% backward compatibility
with CDI 3.x should be a requirement in 4.0. Not that we should change the
whole thing capriciously but it is is a major release and if we can add new
value by changing CDI then that's OK.
Use of org.eclipse.* in CDI: Thanks for the CDI history lesson. I think we
should use org.eclipse.* stuff where it makes sense.
Regards - Ken
> From: ext Alain Magloire <alain@xxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: CDT Debug developers list <cdt-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:35:02 -0400
> To: CDT Debug developers list <cdt-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: breaking changes in 4.0 for CDI (was: RE: [cdt-debug-dev] Lis t
> of Plan items)
>
>
>
>> From: cdt-debug-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-debug-dev-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mikhail Khodjaiants
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:53 AM
>> To: CDT Debug developers list
>> Subject: RE: breaking changes in 4.0 for CDI (was: RE: [cdt-debug-dev]
>> List of Plan items)
>>
>> The instanceof should be used to check for IAdaptable anyway...
>
> ??
> If the object is clearly extending IAdaptable, this would be redundant.
>
>> Speaking seriously, I would prefer to vote for a patch not for an idea.
>
> 8-)
> It is the opposite for me. I would prefer folks talk about the ideas before
> sending in patches and applying them. It gives a chance for review and
> maybe exploring different avenues.
>
>> I have the proposal document ready and I am going to add it to wiki.
>>
>
> Cool!
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-debug-dev mailing list
> cdt-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-debug-dev
