[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [e4-dev] Re-exporting Require-Bundle
|
Hi,
This is a general issue when an EMF *model* is part of your API, and not
just the API that is generated by EMF from a model. Although most people
will program against the generated API, you cannot hide the EMF API,
since you can always get the EClass and traverse the underlying model.
Hence, it can be argued that there is no reason hiding EMF either.
Hallvard
Eike Stepper wrote:
-1
Some time ago there was already a long discussion about re-exporting
pros and cons. Unfortunately I can't remember pointers to it.
Here my 2 cents:
IMHO it depends mostly on whether the API of the referenced bundle A is
an integral part of the API of the referencing bundle B, or not. If it
is part of the higher API, e.g. B publishes method signatures with
parameter types from A, then bundle A should be re-exported since it is
a pain for API B clients to recurse through all the non-explicit,
transitive dependencies. The question if it's a good idea to put A-types
into the B-API is a separate discussion. But I think sometimes it's
convenient and sometimes it's necessary.
In this particular case it seems as if dependencies (require-bundle) on
some EMF bundles raised the issue. I know that the APIs of EMF probably
belong to the most stable ones in Eclipse. And usually code that depends
on these EMF APIs will never even want to drop this dependency. So, in
the end I think that the two the main arguments *against* re-exporting
dependencies don't count so much if we talk particularly about
dependencies on EMF ;-)
Cheers
/Eike
----
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper
Thomas Watson schrieb:
+1
Re-exporting is evil. I think it really dirties your bundle's API
contract. Unless you use a real brittle version range on your
require-bundle constraint you cannot be that confident that your API
signature will remain constant for a particular version of you bundle.
I would almost go as far as to say we should add a warning in PDE to
flag any usage of re-export. I think it is simply a bad practice
re-export bundles. The problem is once you have added re-export you
cannot remove it without it being considered a breaking API change.
This would be equivalent to removing API from your bundle.
Tom
Inactive hide details for John Arthorne ---06/11/2009 04:22:57 PM---I
noticed org.eclipse.e4.ui.model.workbench re-exports a coJohn Arthorne
---06/11/2009 04:22:57 PM---I noticed
org.eclipse.e4.ui.model.workbench re-exports a couple of EMF plug-ins.
As a general reminder, re-exporting should be
From:
John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
06/11/2009 04:22 PM
Subject:
[e4-dev] Re-exporting Require-Bundle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I noticed org.eclipse.e4.ui.model.workbench re-exports a couple of EMF
plug-ins. As a general reminder, re-exporting should be avoided if
possible, since it means you are essentially publishing the entire API
of that other bundle as part of your bundle, and committing to
maintaining that re-exported content indefinitely. Avoiding re-export
generally gives more flexibility to remove or refactor dependencies in
the future without breaking the API exposed by your plug-in. Does
anyone know of a particular reason for the re-exports in this case? If
I don't hear back, I'll make an attempt at fixing this to avoid
re-export._______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
