Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [wtp-dev] Convention for "internal" packages
Seems to me that if they really want to override our export rules, they could simply import the relevent plugin as source and play around with the code as they please. For that matter, might it not be as simple as ignoring forbidden references? Or does the export-package manifest actually cause things not be class loaded for external users?
In any case, we are still permitted to use x-friends from what I read there. This still allows me to create packages which, though exported, are only visible to a narrow number of plugins. Either I'm missing something or this policy has not been well-thought out and tested. 


--Cam

David M Williams wrote:
> Is this policy recorded anywhere? 
I think the best description of Export-Package policy is under
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/API_Central
which gives the reason as
Not to mention if someone found it worth taking the risk to provide a better product! :)
I know it's tempting to think we always know what's best for others .... but, imagine our indignation if the Eclipse Platform "refused" to export those few cases of non-API which 
we in WTP have found to be essential.
I think the root problem is we can not effectively use 'warnings' correctly, since 
we have too many (not to mention we in WTP are slow to evolve to API :)
But, I think we can fix the Christmas tree effect ... over 50,000 warnings in all! 

I'm all for discussion of the topic, but that's been our policy thus far.
And, I think it's the lessor of evils, IMHO.
I honestly haven't surveyed or examined other projects in Eclipse (e.g.DTP, BIRT, TPTP) 
... perhaps a question on cross-project list would be in order?







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

04/10/2007 04:08 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] 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 me. - Konstantin 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *David M Williams* 
Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2007 12:52 PM*
To:* General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.*
Subject:* Re: [wtp-dev] Convention for "internal" packages
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. http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/development/arch_and_design/subsystems/SubsystemsAndFeatures.html 
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 note about!





*Cameron Bateman <cameron.bateman@xxxxxxxxxx>*
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

04/10/2007 02:31 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] Convention for "internal" packages




	






Correct me if I'm wrong but x-internal applies at the package level, not
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 "internal"?

Also, x-internal has several serious problems that I can see.  First, it
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 do respect
strictly the "forbidden" flag, which is what you get if you use
x-friends.  Second, x-friends is actually *overriden* when you use
x-internal.


--Cam

David M Williams wrote:

>
> 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 documented
> 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, and
> 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, etc.
>
> I'd suggest opening a bugzilla to document details of your proposed
> changes, and ideally provide changes to clients for review in a
> 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, at
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
> *"Ian Trimble" <ian.trimble@xxxxxxxxxx>*
> Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 04/10/2007 12:51 PM
> Please respond to
> "ian.trimble@xxxxxxxxxx" <ian.trimble@xxxxxxxxxx>; Please respond to
> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." > <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
>
>
> > To 
>                  "wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
> > Subject 
>                  [wtp-dev] Convention for "internal" packages
>
>
>
> > 
>
>
>
>
> 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
> injecting "internal" into non-API package names? What is the convention?
> > Thanks, 
>  - Ian (JSF Tools Project)
> > ------------------------------------------------------------ 
> Ian Trimble
> JDeveloper Group
> Oracle Corporation Canada Inc.
> Office: (250) 954-0837
> Email: _ian.trimble@oracle.com_ <mailto:ian.trimble@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Web: _http://www.oracle.com_ <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
> please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
> > 

_______________________________________________
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

Back to the top