| Re: [cdt-dev] Generics and APIs |
|
I think since CDT is incrementing its major version, binary
compatibility is not as important as the M6 API freeze. But this also
means that these changes could very well be accomplished in CDT 5.1, if
there is such a release. Cheers, Pawel Oberhuber, Martin wrote: Hello Jason, I might have missed something here since it's been a while Since I've been digesting cdt-dev... But in what respect Do you think that "Genericizing" a method return value is An API change? On http://wiki.eclipse.org/Evolving_Java-based_APIs_2#Turning_non-generic_t ypes_and_methods_into_generic_ones I can read "As long as the erasure looks like the corresponding declaration prior to generification, the change is binary compatible with existing code." So your change is definitely binary compatible. It's not source compatbile, of course, because a (theoretical) Client that uses a Map<Foo,Bar> and was able to assign your Returned Map to his Map<Foo,Bar> can no longer do this now. But that would likely have been an error anyways... Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm-----Original Message----- From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Montojo Sent: Donnerstag, 10. April 2008 21:39 To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [cdt-dev] Generics and APIs Hi everyone, I've been fixing compiler warnings about generics in the language mapping classes. This involved having to change a number of method signatures to account for parameterized collections. For example, I changed this in LanguageManager: Old: public Map getContentTypeIdToLanguageDescriptionsMap(){ ... } New: public Map<String, ILanguageDescriptor[]> getContentTypeIdToLanguageDescriptionsMap(){ ... } Such a change wouldn't break existing clients and it makes the API much easier to work with. Regardless, it is still an API change. Should I go ahead and make the changes to the signatures? Or should I leave them as-is? I know we're already past the API freeze so I'd like to know how the community feels about this. Thanks, Jason Montojo IBM CDT Team IBM Toronto Lab 905-413-5228 jmontojo@xxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ cdt-dev mailing list cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev_______________________________________________ cdt-dev mailing list cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev |