Bug 234076 - API guidelines wrong regarding binary breakage when adding fields
Summary: API guidelines wrong regarding binary breakage when adding fields
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Doc (show other bugs)
Version: 3.4   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Boris Bokowski CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-05-27 02:43 EDT by Dani Megert CLA
Modified: 2019-09-06 16:08 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Dani Megert CLA 2008-05-27 02:43:48 EDT 
3.4 RC2

The http://wiki.eclipse.org/Evolving_Java-based_APIs_2#Evolving_API_Classes is wrong regarding adding binary fields: in most cases this is not a breakage  - not even if there is a subclass. For details see:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/binaryComp.doc.html

We should exactly list the cases where it breaks compatibility.
Comment 1 Jim des Rivieres CLA 2008-05-27 09:32:26 EDT 
Boris, Reassigning to you. We should review and include with the planned update to API guidelines.
Comment 2 Boris Bokowski CLA 2008-05-27 09:40:48 EDT 
Scheduling for RC4.
Comment 3 Boris Bokowski CLA 2008-06-06 08:21:03 EDT 
Note that there is a 3rd editition of the JLS which has more to say on the subject.
Comment 4 Philipe Mulet CLA 2008-06-10 11:58:41 EDT 
RC4 is behind us, please update the target appropriately
Comment 5 Kevin McGuire CLA 2008-06-10 14:50:12 EDT 
Setting milestone to 3.5 since RC4 is behind us.  Please correct to more precise milestone.
Comment 6 Boris Bokowski CLA 2008-06-10 15:08:45 EDT 
I am still planning to work on this as soon as I have some time. The target milestone does not really matter, this is about an article on eclipse.org and a wiki page.
Comment 7 Eclipse Webmaster CLA 2019-09-06 16:08:16 EDT 
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.