[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [wtp-dev] FW: Arrays vs. Collections in new API
|
>
You claim that won't break binary compatibility. Have you tested
that?
Yes
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
