[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [p2-dev] @noimplement on IMetadataRepository ?

Hi John,
I actually just recently discovered the EMF changed EObject from being an abstract class to being an interface. They had this harsh limitation for the same reason as p2 I guess. To allow compatible API evolution :-)

How do we get rid of all the "Illegally implements" warnings in the p2 code?

Thomas Hallgren

On 02/16/2010 04:49 PM, John Arthorne wrote:
Yes, clients are supposed to subclass AbstractMetadataRepository rather than implementing the interface directly. The restriction is there so that we can add methods to this interface in the future - an interface implemented directly by clients can never be evolved in a compatible way. This sounds like quite a harsh limitation of EMF - many Eclipse APIs are moving towards abstract base classes rather than interfaces to allow for compatible API evolution.


On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Why is the IMetadataRepository interface annotated with a  @noimplement? Not only do we get warnings all over the p2 code, I also wonder what I I am supposed to do if I really want to write a IMetadataRepository of my own. Our Aggregator already has one (backed by an ecore model) and we might want to write others that are backed by databases etc.

Are clients supposed to derive the AbstractMetadataRepository? For us, that's problematic since we need to inherit the EObject from ecore. Or are there other reasons for this annotation?

Thomas Hallgren

p2-dev mailing list

_______________________________________________ p2-dev mailing list p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev