To be honest, outside the Platform, API
management hasn’t been as strict. The pragmatics of trying to build APIs
without enough resources to do it properly win the day. For example, the CDT is
coming up to 4.0 and we’re finally deciding to maybe solidify the APIs so
they don’t change so much. As long as all of the users of the APIs
participate actively in the project you can manage change. In fact, for the
most part, it’s the users of the APIs that are driving the change. This
works as long as your ISV community is small enough, which is probably true
with PTP (but not with CDT anymore L)
Cheers,
Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project
Lead, Tools PMC Member
From:
tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Watson
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007
4:25 PM
To: Tools
PMC mailing list
Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] PTP 1.1
release review
Jeff,
On Jan 4, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
I just want to be really clear on the API points.
Adding API can cause breakage (e.g., adding a method to an interface that
others are exepected to implement). In the release review context it is
interesting to know a) that the API has evolved with new function and b) that
the old and new API are binary compatible. That says that existing
clients continue to work and new/updated clients have improvements available.
Of course, this also impacts the package/bundle version numbering.
I'll send you some pointers to a new API comparison tool we are working
on that should help clarify what is going on here.
Great thanks. There was less emphasis on API's in the Technology
Project (understandably, since it is an incubator), but I'm happy to change
this now we're part of Tools.
BTW, what is going to be your story for the 1.x ->
2.0 migration? Are you going to keep the 1.x API alive or toss it and
have everyone migrate to 2.0?
The 1.x API will be tossed. There is no real need to keep the 1.x API
since we don't have many clients in 1.x (mainly our own code), and new
integrators are being directed to 2.0.
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the input. Responses below. I'll clarify these in the slides before
the review.
Greg
On Jan 3, 2007, at 8:36 PM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
Thanks Greg. Overall the deck looks good. One of the things that
caught my eye was slide 7 (API). There are a couple of points that give
me pause.
- Runtime and debugger APIs are still evolving
- What is the status of this API for this release
then?
The runtime API for the 1.0 and 1.1 releases are stable. However, the 2.0
release will have significant, breaking, changes, since we're currently
implementing considerable new functionality. The debug API will also be
relatively stable, though there were some minor changes between 1.0 and 1.1.
- APIs have been kept as stable as possible
in this release
- Not sure how to read that. did you break
API from last release?
There were some additions to the debug API, but the existing 1.0 API has been
preserved. I wouldn't consider that these break the API.
- What was the last release number?
1.0
- Have the plugin version numbers been incremented
appropriately?
The plugin version will change from 1.0.0 to 1.1.0.
- How much API was broken?
- Who will be affected by this? (e.g., how
many people, what kind of people, ...)
No one that I'm aware of. Integrators and contributors are working with the 2.0
(head) branch rather than the 1.x branch. There are a small number of users who
will benefit from the enhancements/bug fixes in the 1.1 release.
Jeff
Here are the slides.
Thanks,
Greg
[attachment "PTP 1.1 Review.ppt" deleted
by Jeff McAffer/Ottawa/IBM]
On Jan 3, 2007, at 1:32 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
> I think all you would need are completed
release review slides.
> We'll do a
> quick review to make sure you have
everything, then you can
> schedule the
> review with Anne Jacko.
>
> Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
> Eclipse CDT Project Lead, Tools PMC Member
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Greg Watson
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:00 PM
>> To: tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [tools-pmc] PTP 1.1 release
review
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd like to schedule a review for the 1.1
release of PTP. Now that
>> we're part of Tools, I'd like to conform
to your development process.
>> Is there anything in particular that I
need to do before scheduling
>> the review?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
>> tools-pmc mailing list
>> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
|
