[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
| Re: [eclipse-pmc] Add back an old method from 3.3 (detected as an API	addition since 3.4M6a) | 
Actually, it's *not* just a technical detail: It physically adds another method object to the class. In a world where people run out of permgen space, we can not afford to take that lightly.
Separate from that, adding back the method, with a body that is known to fail, also seems bogus -- why would we want people to fail at runtime, when removing the method would allow them to detect the problem at compile time?
McQ.
![Inactive hide details for Jerome Lanneluc ---04/30/2008 06:05:13 PM---I'm not sure why this was brought to the PMC. The method]() Jerome Lanneluc ---04/30/2008 06:05:13 PM---I'm not sure why this was brought to the PMC. The method is not API since  it is clearly stated that
Jerome Lanneluc ---04/30/2008 06:05:13 PM---I'm not sure why this was brought to the PMC. The method is not API since  it is clearly stated that
| ![]() From:
 | ![]() Jerome Lanneluc <jerome_lanneluc@xxxxxxxxxx>
 | 
| ![]() To:
 | ![]() eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
 | 
| ![]() Date:
 | ![]() 04/30/08 06:05 PM
 | 
| ![]() Subject:
 | ![]() Re: [eclipse-pmc] Add back an old method from 3.3 (detected as an API	addition since 3.4M6a)
 | 
I'm not sure why this was brought to the PMC. The method is not API since it is clearly stated that it should not be referenced in 3.3. Adding it back is just a technical detail to make the API tooling happy.
 
Jerome
 
| Mike Wilson <Mike_Wilson@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
 30/04/2008 04:30 PM 
 
 
| Please respond toeclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
 |  | 
| To | eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx |  | cc | ![]() |  | Subject | Re: [eclipse-pmc] Add back an old method from 3.3 (detected as an API        addition since 3.4M6a) |  
 | 
This brings up an interesting discussion about how religiously we have to adhere to our API conventions. Somehow adding this method back, just to make the API tool happy, seems odd (particularly, since it doesn't work any more). Should we not just add an entry to the porting guide instead?
McQ.
![Inactive hide details for Olivier Thomann---04/29/2008 10:14:19 PM---GOALS/BENEFITS:]() Olivier Thomann---04/29/2008 10:14:19 PM---GOALS/BENEFITS:
Olivier Thomann---04/29/2008 10:14:19 PM---GOALS/BENEFITS:
| Olivier Thomann/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
 04/29/08 10:14 PM 
 
 
| Please respond toeclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
 |  | 
 | 
GOALS/BENEFITS:
- When converting JDT/Core to API tools, a method tagged as internal in an 
API class (org.eclipse.jdt.core.dom.AST) has been removed.
The tooling detected it. To correct the situation, the old method has been 
added back tagged with @noreference and @deprecated and an empty body.
This is now detected by the API freeze check.
AFFECTED BUGS:
- https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=229526
RISKS:
- None. This method is not used. This comes back to the method signature 
that we had in 3.3.
PERFORMANCE IMPACTS:
- None.
Cordialement/Regards,
Frédéric
_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
![]() _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
Compagnie IBM France
Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400 Courbevoie
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 542.737.118 €
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430
_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc




