RE: [wtp-dev] FW: Arrays vs. Collections in new API

[Arthur Ryman <ryman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ted,

Neither.

I mean that if we release an API in
1.0 then we need to preserve it into the future. If a better design comes
up, then we may need to create a parallel set of APIs rather than modify
the old ones. For example, we may use typed Arrays in 1.0 and parameterized
Collections in 1.5, but we'd keep both APIs. Then plug-ins could continue
to use the Array version and not be forced to upgrade to the Collection
version.

Your suggestion is to use unparameterized
Collections in 1.0 and then add the parameter in 1.5. You claim that won't
break binary compatibility. Have you tested that? I'm not sure I like that
even if it works since with the typed Arrays, the compiler can catch errors
in 1.0.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx

"Ted Bashor" <tbashor@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

08/17/2005 07:09 PM

Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."

To	"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	<wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject	RE: [wtp-dev] FW: Arrays vs. Collections in new API

Arthur,
 
1) Do you mean we need to stage
API changes during the 1.0 development cycle in such a way that dependent
plugins have a chance to migrate with no functionality outage?  If
that's what you mean, I totally agree that we shouldn't be checking in
api changes that cripple layered WTP functionality for a period of time.
 
2) Or do you mean there are some
0.7 APIs that must be preserved in the 1.0 release because of binary compatibility
commitments?
 
- Ted
-----Original Message-----
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 8:00 AM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Cc: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.; wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] FW: Arrays vs. Collections in new API


Kosta et al, 

We need to think carefully about the evolution of APIs in general. In some
cases, we may have to preserve the old ones and provide new parallel APIs
that coexist with them. Plug-ins can then migrate to the new ones incrementally.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx

"Konstantin Komissarchik" <kosta@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

08/16/2005 03:28 PM

Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."

To	"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [wtp-dev] FW: Arrays vs. Collections in new API

No, we are not proposing to move to Java 5.0 for the 1.0 release. What
the conversation was about and what we would like to propose to WTP as
a whole is to consider moving to using unparameterized Collections in the
API for the 1.0 release. Then, when platform and WTP moves to Java 5.0
(3.2/1.5?), the APIs can be changed to use parameterized collections without
breaking binary compatibility. 
  
Thoughts? 
  
- Konstantin

---

From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:44 AM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] FW: Arrays vs. Collections in new API
  

This was interesting ... but to be clear, our 1.0 will be on Eclipse 3.1.1
and, I'm guessing, when 
Jim said "in the fall they will start to use Java 5.0" I suspect
he meant for the 3.2 stream. 

Are you suggesting we standardize on Java 5.0 for our API and 1.0 release?
If so ... seems like a huge step, to me. 

So ... just thought I'd ask for clarification ... maybe you were just sharing
an interesting discussion? 

>Jim des Rivieres wrote up this helpful response to an API question
we had, and 
>agreed to let me forward it to the list.  Something to consider
as we finalize api for 1.0.
> 
>-Ted_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev