RE: [eclipse-pmc] Add back an old method from 3.3 (detected as an APIadd

["Walter Harley" <eclipse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]



Binary compatibility is an issue (for clients who obeyed the comment and didn't reference that particular method).

 

If binary compatibility has already been broken, then ignore that.

 

  -walter

---

From: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Wilson
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 6:11 AM
To: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [eclipse-pmc] Add back an old method from 3.3 (detected as an APIaddition 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.


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 to
eclipse-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.


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 to
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx

To	eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx, eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	[eclipse-pmc] Add back an old method from 3.3 (detected as an API addition since 3.4M6a)

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