Community
Participate
Working Groups
You have 2 plugins, both shall use the same customBuildCallbacks.xml, so you write in both plugins build.properties: customBuildCallbacks=../mydefaultcallbacks/customBuildCallbacks.xml Then you have a 3th plugin, that shall use different callbacks, so in this plugins build.properties you write: customBuildCallbacks=./customBuildCallbacks.xml And then you have a feature, that shall use callbacks as well, but whatever you write in this features build.properties, you will end up with this message: [available] DEPRECATED - <available> used to override an existing property. [available] Build file should not reuse the same property name for different values.
I'm surprised we haven't seen this earlier. It appears that the plugin's build.xml is inheriting the customBuildCallbacks property from the feature. Either we figure out how to not have that property inherited, or we need to name them uniquely. The name would likely need to be based on the name of the feature/plugin since nested features will inherit their parent's property (so simply naming them customFeatureCallbacks and customPluginCallbacks would not be enough). This appears to be a warning and the callbacks are still being called.
> ... since nested features will inherit their parent's property (so > simply naming them customFeatureCallbacks and customPluginCallbacks > would not be enough) Hmm - that would have been my solution proposal, but it looks like you are right. Even more, one of my collegues says, that even plugins can consist of just a list of plugins. (This shall be usefull to create a bundled interface for actually a bunch of plugins.) If so, the inheritance vs. redefinition problem also exists for plugin-of-plugin situations.
Created attachment 64788 [details] Test case showing the problem Here is a test case showing the problem. To reproduce, generate the scripts on the feature (f or f2) and then run the script on "build.jars" target on the feature. Even though the warning is ugly / scary, the attach test case shows that the proper behavior is being executed (see the hello messages printed into the console). Therefore I don't think we should try to fix that for 3.3. Ever? this is another question?
Currently we are not actively enhancing PDE build anymore. Therefore, I close this bug as WONTFIX. Please reopen, if you plan to provide a fix.
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. -- The automated Eclipse Genie.
