Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] JFace Generics

On 13-08-29 3:49 PM, "Aleksandar Kurtakov" <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Arthorne" <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Cross project issues" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 7:37:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] JFace Generics
>> You raise good arguments as always Ed. I will attempt to summarize and
>> respond to some of the comments raised in this thread.
>> Q: Should JFace be generified at all.
>> As with most library generifications there are pros and cons that we can
>> probably debate all day. I still think on balance it will be a net
>> for consumers. Some will not have homogeneous element types and will be
>> stuck with Object, and therefore be no better or worse off than before.
>> TreeViewer is the worst case, although I think it would be difficult and
>> awkward to generify some viewer types but not others. My experience with
>> most generification is that 90% of usage is adapted relatively
>> and eliminates a tonne of casting, resulting in cleaner code. There are
>> always some rough edges, especially where arrays are found, and
>> warnings is sometimes necessary. There is certainly work involved for
>> clients to adopt it, although I don't find that alone a compelling
>> to do nothing at all. A good place to continue this general discussion
>> be the master bug report:
>> Q: Should we release incomplete work to a milestone
>> I'm torn on this one. Certainly in the past our project adopted a "we
>> accept your contribution until it is perfect" approach. There is no
>> this benefits consumers, but I think it has strongly discouraged all
>>but the
>> most die-hard contributors to the project. Given the number of remaining
>> active contributors, I strongly believe we need to find ways to make
>> progress using the contributors we have, at the rate they are capable of
>> contributing. 
>Huge +1000 here. Eclipse platform is one of the projects that's hardest
>to get things into and I couldn't say that it's so much better than
>others like Gnome or KDE for example.
>The longer changes are delayed the more disruptive changes become. Even
>if certain things might be disruptive now this is the price to be paid
>for neglecting majority of contributors for years.
>Please keep opening the project - rejecting contributions is the road to
>oblivion. The question shouldn't be whether it benefits all API users but
>whether it breaks stuff. If it doesn't and if there is contributor
>willing to spend time on it he/she should be encouraged to contribute
>even if it will benefit single digit percentage of users. Growing
>contributors never starts with huge things, it works by piling stuff on
>and getting contributors used to workflow and guidelines in the project.

Same here. You have to ask yourself whether rejecting contributions and
evolution of the APIs has led to the reduced number of active contributors
we have. I know it's more complicated than that, but please don't discount

>Alexander Kurtakov
>Red Hat Eclipse team
>> Undoubtedly this is a slower and bumpier road, but I think the
>> risk is better than the alternative of stagnating because there are no
>> contributors who can keep up with the old pace expected/demanded by the
>> community. Certainly if there was risk of data loss or severe problems
>> tool usability, we would have avoided releasing in a milestone. In this
>> the worst case is compiler warnings which can be disabled if desired. I
>> understand there are some who consider warnings to be catastrophically
>> but the community compiling against our milestones is a tiny fraction
>>of the
>> overall community. I believe all changes released were binary
>>compatible and
>> not changing behaviour.
>> In the end I admit we got this one wrong. We misjudged the rate of
>> on the work, and many committers being on holiday bogged down the review
>> process. We should have kept the work in a branch and waited until at
>> after M1 to release. Some damage is already done, but we are now
>> investigating moving the work into a branch. This will actually
>>introduce a
>> much worse problem for any client that had reacted to changes already,
>> it will result in compile errors. We'll send a separate warning note
>> this once we are sure on this path, so it doesn't get lost in this
>> long-winded message.
>> Q: I have some specific technical concerns about the approach taken so
>> This is excellent feedback and I'm sure it will be incorporated into
>>the work
>> going forward. I wonder if we would have had such feedback if we hadn't
>> released anything to master ;)
>> Q: Your communication sucks.
>> Yes it does. I think normally we wait until things are closer to
>> before making big announcements. It is quite often that we have feature
>> in progress appearing in a milestone, that we hold off on announcing
>>until a
>> future milestone when it is more polished. In this case because the
>> state already had significant source level impact this should have been
>> communicated more widely.
>> John
>> From: Ed Merks <ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx,
>> Date: 08/29/2013 03:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] JFace Generics
>> Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Hi,
>> It's difficult to avoid an emotional outburst at this type of thing. I'm
>> completely shocked that sweeping changes of this nature go unannounced
>> this mailing list. Sorry, a blog doesn't cut it...
>> It's clear the current state is woefully incomplete. I.e., we have
>> IStructuredContentProvider<E, I> but ITreeContentProvider is still raw.
>> course it's clear that a tree rarely has uniformly typed children, so
>> is the plan for the completion of JFace's APIs? I question all this
>> committed to master in incremental stages like this...
>> EMF is a sea of warnings with these changes, and eliminating those is
>> of work; work I can't begin because the changes are incomplete. And of
>> course this affects all users of JFace, not just EMF, so the overall
>> to the community is hard to calculate. The most disturbing part of all
>> is that I question whether it has even been well thought out. For
>> the following change is highly disturbing:
>> public interface IStructuredContentProvider<E,I> extends
>> {
>> public E[] getElements(I inputElement);
>> }
>> Suppose I used it like this:
>> public class GenericContentProvider<E, I extends List<E>> implements
>> IStructuredContentProvider<E, I> {
>> @Override
>> public void dispose() {
>> }
>> @Override
>> public void inputChanged(Viewer<I> viewer, I oldInput, I newInput) {
>> }
>> @Override
>> public E[] getElements(I inputElement) {
>> return (E[])inputElement.toArray();
>> }
>> }
>> I.e., I have a generic content provider implementation class that for a
>> List<E> input returns the elements of that list. But there is a warning
>> the code for "E[])inputElement.toArray();" and it's not something one
>> blithely ignore. It will never be possible to create a generic subclass
>> IContentProvider that leaves E unsubstituted by a concrete
>> class, because it will never be possible to create an E[] array. If you
>> question this assertion, stop and ask yourself why
>> java.util.Collection.toArray() if of type Object[] and not of type E[]?
>> because it would not be possible to implement generic Collection
>> implementation classes.
>> I can't emphasize enough how disturbing I find the approach being taken
>> We're all familiar with using generics, but implementing generic classes
>> properly remains complex and tricky and what's being done in JFace
>> just impact the use of generics, it forces us all to revisit our
>> implementation classes. For example, perhaps someone can explain how
>> org.eclipse.jface.viewers.ArrayContentProvider will be updated? Probably
>> just to "class ArrayContentProvider implements
>> IStructuredContentProvider<Object, Object>" I would imagine, but that's
>> terribly useful is it? I imagine the overall impact on the community is
>> make sweeping pointless changes of precisely this nature. But suppose I
>> have a nice implementation class where I wanted
>> IStructuredContentProvider<Foo, Bar>, my current implementation of
>> getElements is probably wrong and would need to change to return Foo[].
>> of what value is that? ContentProviders are generally just passed to a
>> generic viewer, which uses it in a context where the types don't
>>matter. So
>> what's the benefit?
>> Sorry to be so extreme in my opinion, but I would go further and argue
>> it's hard to imagine a significant set of scenarios where the new APIs
>> helpful even if this generic array issue wasn't just plain wrong or a
>> horribly bad idea... I could go on and on, but as I said, it's hard to
>> remain unemotional about this...
>> Regards,
>> Ed
>> On 29/08/2013 7:46 AM, Lars Vogel wrote:
>> Hi Eike,
>> this is a GSoC done by Hendrik (cc) and was announced on PlanetEclipse.
>> .
>> John Arthone and I are the mentors for this project
>> The work is still ongoing so far the ComboViewer and the TableViewer
>> been converted as well several basic classes. We currently don't know
>>if we
>> can generify IStructuredSelection.
>> Input is very welcome, the umbrella bug is
>> and every code
>> is pushed to Gerrit. Look in
>>,n,z for
>> (so don't know how to narrow the query down to Hendrik only).
>> Best regards, Lars
>> 2013/8/29 Eike Stepper < stepper@xxxxxxxxxx >
>> Hi,
>> After updating my target platform to Luna I noticed that my workspace
>>is full
>> of raw type warnings caused by changes in JFace to generify its APIs,
>> example Viewer. But the changes look incomplete, e.g.,
>> ViewerDropAdapter.getViewer() is still a raw type. Can we expect more
>> changes, e.g., IStructuredSelection?
>> Has there been an announcement for these changes? Is there any advice
>>on how
>> to adjust our code?
>> What about other Eclipse APIs, such as IAdaptable.getAdapter(Class),
>>will it
>> be changed to <T> T getAdapter(Class<T>)?
>> Cheers
>> /Eike
>> ----
>> _______________________________________________
>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> _______________________________________________
>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> _______________________________________________
>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> _______________________________________________
>> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>cross-project-issues-dev mailing list

Back to the top