Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Is it acceptable to have two com.google.common.collect providers?
I think it's acceptable, since the are exported in different versions.
Also I don't see any alternatives.
On Dec 16, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Ed Willink wrote:
> Does no-one have a view on whether provision of the com.google.common.collect package by two distinct Orbit bundles is acceptable?
> Ed Willink
> On 15/12/2011 06:25, Ed Willink wrote:
>> In Indigo, the com.google.common.collect package was (and still is) provided by the com.google.collect plugin.
>> It is now also provided by the com.google.guava plugin.
>> For M4, Xtext 2.2.1 switched to Guava and so switched provider, but the old provider is still available in repositories for downstream projects that neglect to update their dependencies accurately.
>> As a consequence, the M4 OCL Tools contribution provides broken editors. Since these are technically 'Examples', a respin is clearly not merited, so MDT/OCL will be providing an M4a.
>> However it seems appropriate to at least warn the community of this hazard, and ask whether this is a serious breach of versioning principles.
>> Ed Willink
>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2108/4681 - Release Date: 12/14/11
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list