[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [wtp-dev] Notice of upcoming change in provisional api
|
Konstantin,
Thanks for splitting up the changes
and waiting for the code-change process to be established.
But, as you are leading the pack here,
you've revealed two other issues (early):
1. Some of the changes you made to other
team's plugins (to move them off the deprecated API) are the correct changes
to
make, but the timing is wrong. Many
(if not all) of those teams have not branched their plugins for 1.5 vs
2.0, so what ever is
checked into HEAD can be confusing should
they need to make an emergency fix for 1.5.1 ... or, might make it confusing
if or when they do go to split streams
for 1.5.2, which may not be split immediately, or, what ever.
So, can you please back out those changes
made to unbranched plugins? Feel free to chat with those
component leads if you have questions
on how to get back to their 1.5.1 state.
2. Plus, you've revealed, that another
part of the documented process should be a bug should be open when changes
are
made to other's code. Usually it is
much appreciated when you fix other's code, as in this case, but, it is
nice to have a
clear bugzilla where the changes, reasons,
timing, etc., are all documented. I'm not sure if you had a general
"cleanup"
bug, but, it wasn't immediately obvious,
so, thought I'd include this note here so we all would learn the importance
of
bugzilla and tracking changes.
Thanks again, both for your general
contributions and these specific fixes.
"Konstantin Komissarchik"
<kosta@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
09/21/2006 12:55 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] Notice of upcoming change
in provisional api |
|
I separated the potentially
breaking changes from the part that’s purely additive. I released the
additive part and opened two new bugs to track what still needs to be done
after the new process is established.
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=158082
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=158083
- Konstantin
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:34 PM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Notice of upcoming change in provisional api
You say "Ample notice"
has been given ... and, I assumed you checked the scan data to confirm
not used? But ... remember, ample to us is not necessarily ample to others
...
[kk] Scan still show usage. I don’t know whether this means that scans
are out of date or that adopters haven’t migrated off the deprecated api.
Multiple messages went out to the wtp-dev mailing list prior to 1.5 release
regarding this. The messages outlined exactly the api involved and layed
out the timeframe (deprecation in 1.5.x and removal in 2.0). The same content
was also placed in the ISV docs at the location that I specified. The code
itself was marked with deprecation syntax where possible and runtime warning
messages were provided for some of the api where deprecation would not
be easily apparent. Given the provisional status of this api, I would consider
this “ample notice.”
One suggestion I am going to make
is that "new" work or "big changes" take place in a
temporary branch, so potential reviewers could "get at it" easier
for review.
[kk] I think this
makese sense, to an extent, but only for very large and complicated changes.
An exception rather than a rule. The problem is that when we have a major
feature release like 2.0 we will have a lot of new functionality being
developed. Under the proposed approach we would have quite a handful of
these private branches. That would create a lot of maintenance overhead
in keeping them all up to date. The longer these branches exist, the more
overhead is created and the more risk there is that some integration mistake
will be made.
Another suggestion I'll be making
is that we "stage" our changes, to API or provisional APIs, so
that "we change them once", and that's it. I've heard complaints
from adopters that they'd have to change a little one milestone, then change
a little the next milestone, then some the next milestone ... sometimes
that's unavoidable, but our plan should be to "do it once"...
so, it'd be good to release code early in a milestone, once we knew if
we were at a point of "that's it", no more changes planned.
[kk] I am not sure
how practical this is. A component may need to make multiple api changes
during a release for various separate reasons. With the approach that you
are proposing, the first of these changes would force the component into
a branch from which it cannot emerge until all of the changes for the release
are done, which may be towards the end of the release. We are talking about
a branch that may exist for half a year or longer. That’s very bad. It
seems to me that the adopters who integrate at the level of the milestones
should expect incremental changes in those milestones. If they don’t want
to deal with these incremental changes, perhaps they should be integrating
at the level of the releases not at the level of the milestones.
Are you at that point? Or do you
have more changes planned?
[kk] There are certainly
further changes planned for the 2.0 release.
I won't ask what your plans for
API are, yet, because then you'd ask me about Java 5 :) .... which, btw,
I'm almost ready to have that discussion too!
[kk] I can answer this. The status of declaring official api on the faceted
project framework component hinges on four things: (a) ability to use Java
5 language features, (b) completion of the project to create the common
runtime modeling component (aka elimination of the runtime bridge), (c)
settling the question of whether this code will ever move down to the platform,
and (d) resolution of all bugs and enhancement requests that require api
changes. Hopefully all of these will be resolved by the end of 2.0 and
it will be possible to declare api.
So, if you wouldn't mind waiting
a bit, then maybe you could be our first user of the new processes ...
and then you could help improve the process for the next guy?
[But, if its urgent for you to get these in ... doesn't sound like you'd
break adopters and you'd fix some important bugs, so, don't let me slow
you down .... too much :) ]
[kk] I would strongly
prefer not to have to hold on to these changes. I imagine it would take
us a while to agree on a new process and waiting for the process to be
resolved would make it rather difficult for me to make further progress
on the 2.0 work items (changes stack up behind this). The notice mail should
provide sufficient information for any party that’s concerned about this
change to conduct a review.
[kk] While we are
on the subject, I’d like to start the discussion of what our policy is
going to be regarding api-breaking changes (I am not talking just provisional
api here) for the 2.0 release. In order to make progress on several of
our major work items (the common runtime modeling framework is one example),
it will be necessary to break api. If we allow this for some components,
I wonder whether we should make a general statement that the 2.0 release
is a chance for all the components to review their api and make the necessary
changes. I am not advocating gratuitous changes here, I am just suggesting
that we have come a long way since our first release and we could all use
a chance to take a step back and apply lessons learned towards bettering
our api. A couple of us have been batting some ideas for mitigating impact
to adopters due to this. One idea is to extend the life of the 1.5.x maintenance
line further than it would normally extend to, say 1.5.6, 1.5.7, etc. This
way adopters who are not ready to absorb api changes can have a release
vehicle for important fixes. It may also be forth it to have a small feature
release, say 1.6, to deliver Eclipse 3.3 compatibility and perhaps minimal
Java EE 5 support (basically enough so that we don’t get in the way of
development of Java EE 5 apps like we currently do). In either case, just
some ideas to get a discussion going...
- Konstantin
From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:06 PM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] Notice of upcoming change in provisional api
Thanks Konstantin, these sound like important changes, and sounds like
you've used care not to break any adopters, but I'll throw in a few complicating
process questions.
You say "Ample notice" has been given ... and, I assumed you
checked the scan data to confirm not used? But ... remember, ample to us
is not necessarily ample to others ...
Also, I am in the middle of proposing some new processes governing how
we change code, how we allow proper review, etc. I haven't "published"
it yet, since I asked the PMC for a sanity check
and make sure I wasn't way off base ... but will hint here at some of the
things I'm suggesting .... I'm not sure they even apply to your cases
... but, without some review process, no one may ever know ... so, some
review
process would be nice.
One suggestion I am going to make is that "new" work or "big
changes" take place in a temporary branch, so potential reviewers
could "get at it" easier for review. And, a component team level
decision made as to when ready to go into head.
Another suggestion I'll be making is that we "stage" our changes,
to API or provisional APIs, so that "we change them once", and
that's it. I've heard complaints from adopters that they'd have to change
a little one milestone, then change a little the next milestone, then some
the next milestone ... sometimes that's unavoidable, but our plan
should be to "do it once"... so, it'd be good to release code
early in a milestone, once we knew if we were at a point of "that's
it", no more changes planned. Are you at that point? Or do you have
more changes planned?
I won't ask what your plans for API are, yet, because then you'd ask me
about Java 5 :) .... which, btw, I'm almost ready to have that discussion
too!
So, if you wouldn't mind waiting a bit, then maybe you could be our first
user of the new processes ... and then you could help improve the process
for the next guy?
[But, if its urgent for you to get these in ... doesn't sound like you'd
break adopters and you'd fix some important bugs, so, don't let me slow
you down .... too much :) ]
"Konstantin Komissarchik"
<kosta@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
09/19/2006 09:21 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
| [wtp-dev] Notice of upcoming change in provisional
api |
|
This is a notice that a change will be released soon that has potential
to cause breakage to users of the faceted project framework’s provisional
api. The change will be made to the HEAD code stream affecting only the
2.0 release code line, so there will be plenty of time for the downstream
code to react if it is affected by this change.
The change has two parts to it:
1. The api and extension points that have been deprecated during the 1.5.0
release have been removed. Information about exactly which api has been
deprecated and now removed can be found in the following section of the
WTP docs: Web Standard Tools Developer Guide -> Programmer’s Guide
-> Faceted Project Framework -> New for 1.5. Ample notice has been
made given in the past regarding this.
2. In order to fix a performance issue described by https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=146321
some api changes were necessary in order to remove the assumption embedded
in the api that facet version comparison is always done directly on version
string. The api change allowed the comparison information to be cached
thereby improving performance. The caching also allowed some api improvement
to take place because several methods no longer needed to throw exceptions.
I do not anticipate this change to cause problems for adopters as the affected
api is only infrequently used outside the framework itself. The api usage
scan did not produce any hits.
Both IProjectFacetVersion and IRuntimeComponentVersion now extend Comparable.
The following methods no longer throw exceptions:
IProjectFacet.getLatestVersion()
IProjectFacet.getLatestSupportedVersion( IRuntime runtime )
IProjectFacet.getSortedVersions( boolean ascending )
IRuntimeComponentType.getLatestVersion()
IRuntimeComponentType.getSortedVersions( boolean ascending )
The IVersionExpr.evaluate( String ) method has been replaced with IVersionExpr.check(
Comparable ) method.
- Konstantin
>>Register now for BEA World 2006
--- See http://www.bea.com/beaworld<<
_______________________________________________________________________
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