RE: [wtp-dev] Convention for "internal" packages
> Maybe it's just terminology, but it is
Eclipse-wide policy that ALL packages and
> classes are made accessible (exported in
the manifest.mf file).
Is this policy recorded anywhere? Seems backwards to me. What are the
justifications for having it be this way. If you know that certain packages
are really internal then they should not be exported. Exporting them (even
if marked with x-internal) just invites people to take a dependency on them
causing both you and them grief down the road. I understand the usage of
x-internal for the "provisional" cases and the cases where there is no api, but
forcing everything to be exported does not make any sense to
Yes, if you have one package that
has both API and non-API Classes in it, then x-internal wouldn't help.
I didn't realize that was the case you
were talking about, so, something has to be done there no matter
what the new name would be, so just as well be
'internal'). You raise some
interesting points about x-friends vs. x-internal that I was not aware of.
In fact, I thought it was the reverse
... that x-friends automatically meant it was x-internal to all (but the few named as friends). So, I learn something
new everyday. But, I think x-friends
is only appropriate for plugins within the same component feature.
Guess we need to update that document to
include JSF and JPA. Also, to
correct something in Ian's note, and perhaps share an Eclipse policy that may
not be known to all. Ian said, "...
since previously-used packages may no longer be
accessible.". Maybe it's just terminology, but it is Eclipse-wide
policy that ALL packages and classes are
made accessible (exported in the manifest.mf file). If you all were
thinking of having a different policy,
then that should be reviewed. The
good news is ... I have a solution for the Christmas tree effect I've been
preparing, and almost ready to send a
Correct me if I'm wrong but x-internal applies at the package level, not
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
04/10/2007 02:31 PM
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
|"General discussion of project-wide
or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|Re: [wtp-dev] Convention for
the class level. How does one differentiate API from internal classes
if they are not separated into different packages by name? And if this
is the case, what would be better as the differentiator than
Also, x-internal has several serious problems that I can see.
only marks something "discouraged" rather than "restricted".
In JSF, we
turn off "discouraged" since otherwise our WTP dependencies
light up our
warnings log like a (yellow) Christmas tree. However, we
strictly the "forbidden" flag, which is what you get if you use
x-friends. Second, x-friends is actually *overriden* when you use
David M Williams
> My thoughts on this are that "internal" in package
names is old-school
> and no longer needed since OSGI and the eclipse
extensions makes it
> not necessary. It would still be ok to do, for
redundancy, but, not
> really required since we can use x-internal. When
starting with a new
> package at the beginning of a develop cycle, it is
fine to use
> 'internal' in the name, but I do not sure it is worth any
risk at all
> this late, since the same information can be conveyed and
> using x-internal.
> I do think it's important
to avoid 'provisional', if it is not too
> disruptive to your
clients/adopters at this point in the 2.0 cycle. In
> theory, we (WTP)
should have no more 'provisional'. That was a
> temporary thing,
> in hindsight, not that useful (and, more disruptive than expected).
> From here on out, new functionality that is exposed for clients should
> be API, or not. We still need to 'evolve' the existing provisional,
> but that'll be a long term process, going through proper review,
> I'd suggest opening a bugzilla to document details of your
> changes, and ideally provide changes to clients for review in
> temporary branch, and get some voice from the community of adopters.
> After all, in the "cost/benefit" trade-offs, it is them that would
> have to pay a cost now, for a potential benefit later. That is,
> this late in the cycle, we should not be making any changes _simply_
> for naming convention purity. But, in the case of 'provisional', it is
> likely a less expensive change to make now, than later.
> *"Ian Trimble"
> Sent by:
> 04/10/2007 12:51 PM
> "ian.trimble@xxxxxxxxxx" <ian.trimble@xxxxxxxxxx>;
Please respond to
> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural
[wtp-dev] Convention for "internal"
We're cleaning up our package names and declaring API in the JSF Tools
Project. We will be refactoring to remove "internal.provisional" from
our package names. Also, we have inherited some code that currently
does not include "internal" in the package name but we do not consider
it API. Is it enough to manipulate the bundle manifest to mark as
"x-internal" for these non-API packages, or should we also be
"internal" into non-API package names? What is the convention?
> - Ian (JSF Tools Project)
> JDeveloper Group
> Oracle Corporation Canada Inc.
Office: (250) 954-0837
> Email: email@example.com_
> Web: _http://www.oracle.com_
> This email
may contain confidential and privileged material for the
> sole use of
the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by
> others is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
contact the sender and delete all copies.
> wtp-dev mailing
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.