[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [wtp-dev] Enablement expression support in validator ext point
|
The log really isn't an instrument to
evolve or correct API, IMHO, ... and, deprecated is deprecated ... it should
stay supported for a long long time .. or, have I misunderstoond and there's
really nothing truly deprecated? Just changed? between milestons?
BTW, not sure if you you're using an
old developement envirnonment? Or, if its a matter of settings. The
deprecated extension points show up fine in the problems view. You
might explore the "ignore, warnings, error" settngs under Plugin
Developement preferences ... and, you'll have to do a "rebuild"
... honest, they really are quite helpful!
"Konstantin Komissarchik"
<kosta@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
04/17/2006 08:41 PM
Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
<wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| "General discussion of project-wide
or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [wtp-dev] Enablement _expression_
support in validator ext point |
|
Comments inline...
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:51 PM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Enablement _expression_ support in validator ext
point
Why would this deprecation message ever have to be part of the log that
is sent to support? Its not doing them, or the user, any good.
[kk] End users and support are not the only consumers of the PDE Error
Log. In fact I view the primary consumers as the developers and the test
org.
Tim has given one example, and, I, as
another battled-scared committer of this mistake, have had "real life"
experience ... I did something similar once, and probably got 5 or
10 "official" support phone calls about "what does this
warning mean", my customer is wondering if its related to the bug
they are having (and while obvious to developers it wasn't related ...
it is not so obvious to support people or customers) ... and I must have
gotten 20 similar calls from "add on" providers -- so, I think
the cost of confusion outweighs the benefits.
[kk] To be honest, I don’t
see anything wrong with what you are describing. Problems that publicize
themselves effectively are more likely to get fixed than those that are
hidden. Before the product reaches end users, it is in the hand of the
dev and test orgs. If the dev and test orgs have punted on fixing these
warnings before shipping the product, then perhaps they shouldn’t be surprised
by the support calls. It might be harsh, but it gets the use of deprecated
functionality eliminated quickly rather than letting it linger. In the
end everyone is happier as there are no surprises when the deprecated functionality
is removed. So I don’t think that the described confusion outweighs the
benefits.
So, I don't see it as "theoretical"
... There's better mechanisms for both deprecations warnings and for plugin
developer aides. Let's use them.
[kk] Unfortunately, there isn’t
a better mechanism. The only mechanism available is “deprecated” flag
on the extension point schema. Unfortunately, the way it is implemented,
you have to really try to see the deprecation warnings. Even having the
plugin project in your workspace does not produce the warning. You have
to open the plugin.xml file in order to see it. That’s unacceptable. The
likelihood that the use of deprecated functionality will go unnoticed,
especially in plugins that are not under active development is rather high.
On the other hand, when I implemented my deprecation checks, the first
time I launched Eclipse, I saw in the log the list of plugins that were
using the deprecated functionality. I was able to very quickly go through
and update all of them. I didn’t need to load all of wtp codebase into
my workspace and then manually open each plugin.xml file to see if there
were any warnings. The end result was that usage of deprecated functionality
was eliminated very quickly instead of lingering.
And .. careful .. if you have strong views on logging, I am looking for
someone to own the logging strategy for WTP :)
[kk] I have no particular interest
in logging. I am very interested in facilitating smooth api evolution,
which requires that deprecated functionality is remove next release after
deprecation, which in turn requires that the usage of deprecated functionality
is eliminated as quickly as possible.
"Konstantin Komissarchik"
<kosta@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
04/17/2006 06:56 PM
Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
<wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| "General discussion of
project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [wtp-dev] Enablement _expression_
support in validator ext point |
|
I disagree. PDE error log is not an end-user tool. It’s meant to help
plugin authors identify problems that occur at runtime. As in support directing
the customer to send the error log to them for trouble shooting. Your average
user should not have any need to look at the log (it’s hidden by default).
If they do, that just means that we are not doing our jobs.
Regarding the particular question of using the log to report deprecation
warnings, I believe that this is not inconsistent with what the PDE error
log is supposed to be used for and is the best tool we have for making
sure that usage of deprecated functionality does not go unnoticed by the
plugin owner. Everyone is happier when there are fewer surprises as the
deprecated functionality is removed in the next release. I also don’t
agree that this hides real errors as there is very good visual separation
between warnings and errors and deprecation reporting only needs to produce
one message per extension point / plugin combination (not a lot).
- Konstantin
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 3:38 PM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Enablement _expression_ support in validator ext
point
I agree with Tim. We should only log things we think users/consumers should
see ... otherwise, please "hide" unless turned on with
some explicit -debug .facet-options flag.
(and, encourage *developers* to clean up their warnings, and/or turn on
deprecated extension points to the 'error' level -- PDE i s your friend
:)
Timothy Deboer <deboer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
04/17/2006 04:00 PM
Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
<wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| "General discussion of
project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [wtp-dev] Enablement _expression_
support in validator ext point |
|
Hi,
While I agree that a little incentive helps to move people off deprecated
API, deprecated Java code doesn't produce output at runtime and I'm not
sure that extension points should. Throwing everything out to the .log
hides real errors and can produce a lot of extraneous output. When the
similar change was made in facets I received several email from panicked
users who thought WTP was failing or blamed other problems on the errors
in the log.
Thanks,
Tim deBoer
WebSphere Tools - IBM Canada Ltd.
(905) 413-3503 (tieline 969)
deboer@xxxxxxxxxx
"Konstantin Komissarchik"
<kosta@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
17/04/2006 02:14 PM
Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
<wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| "General discussion of
project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
| <wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
Subject
| RE: [wtp-dev] Enablement _expression_
support in validator ext point |
|
Vijay,
You may want to consider logging deprecation warnings into PDE Error Log
when the deprecated extension syntax is detected. The deprecation warning
should include the id of the plugin that the deprecated syntax is used
in. This way the plugin owner is more likely to become aware that they
are using deprecated syntax and will transition to the new syntax more
quickly.
I have done this for all the syntax that I have deprecated in the faceted
project framework.
- Konstantin
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Vijay Bhadriraju
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 11:07 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] Enablement _expression_ support in validator ext
point
Yes, enablement is the recommended way to filter validators based on facets,
the facet filters has been deprecated but will continue to work.
Regards, Vijay
_____________________________
Vijay Bhadriraju
Rational Tools, J2EE Tooling
Ph: (919) 486-1898, T/L: 526-1898
Internet: vbhadrir@xxxxxxxxxx
_____________________________
Lawrence Mandel <lmandel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
04/17/2006 12:10 PM
Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
<wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| "General discussion of
project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: [wtp-dev] Enablement _expression_
support in validator ext point |
|
Hi Vijay,
Is the enablement method now the recommended way to restrict based on facets?
Has the facet filters support been deprecated?
Thanks,
Lawrence Mandel
Software Developer
IBM Rational Software
Phone: 905 - 413 - 3814 Fax: 905 - 413 - 4920
lmandel@xxxxxxxxxx
Vijay Bhadriraju <vbhadrir@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
04/16/2006 10:52 PM
Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
<wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [wtp-dev] Enablement _expression_ support
in validator ext point |
|
The support for enablement _expression_ as shown below has been added to
the validator extension point. The facet filters support added in the validator
ext point in addition to natures did not scale very well and additional
requirements from some extended teams drove the need for the enablement
support which scales very well. This _expression_ support covers all
the combinations that the FacetedProjectPropertyTester
provides as this is the tester class that is used under the covers for
property and value strings.
The ejb validator is changed to use this support instead of facet filters
<extension
id="EJBValidator"
name="%EJB_VALIDATOR"
point="org.eclipse.wst.validation.validator">
<validator>
<enablement>
<and>
<test
property="org.eclipse.wst.common.project.facet.core.projectFacet"
value="jst.java"/>
<test
property="org.eclipse.wst.common.project.facet.core.projectFacet"
value="jst.ejb"/>
</and>
</enablement>
<filter
objectClass="org.eclipse.core.resources.IFile"
nameFilter="ejb-jar.xml">
</filter>
<filter
objectClass="org.eclipse.core.resources.IFile"
nameFilter="*.class">
</filter>
<filter
objectClass="org.eclipse.core.resources.IFile"
nameFilter="*.java">
</filter>
<helper
class="org.eclipse.jst.j2ee.internal.ejb.workbench.validation.EJBHelper">
</helper>
<dependentValidator
depValValue="true">
</dependentValidator>
<markerId
markerIdValue="EJBValidatorMarker">
</markerId>
<run
class="org.eclipse.jst.j2ee.internal.ejb.workbench.validation.UIEjbValidator">
</run>
</validator>
</extension>
The facet filters support still exists and works in the validator ext point
even though it is redundant with this enablement support. The reason it
is still supported is for the fact that we are not supposed to break any
internal api also at this point for 1.5. Validators using facet filters
will continue to work as is and the any validators that need the enablement
_expression_ support can migrate.
Regards, Vijay
_____________________________
Vijay Bhadriraju
Rational Tools, J2EE Tooling
Ph: (919) 486-1898, T/L: 526-1898
Internet: vbhadrir@xxxxxxxxxx
_____________________________
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev