[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
[dsdp-tm-dev] RE: Please review API Javadoc Tags
|
Well not so much clean up... Even if nobody
Implements an interface, he could still call
Methods on it, so we cannot ever remove a method
>From an interface in a non-breaking way.
But we can add methods in a non-breaking way
When clients are not allwed to implement an interface.
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: David Dykstal [mailto:david_dykstal@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 24. April 2008 14:33
> To: Schwarz, Tobias
> Cc: Target Management developer discussions; Oberhuber, Martin
> Subject: RE: Please review API Javadoc Tags
>
> So it appears that @noimplement is good for these for the
> time being. It
> will allow us to take steps to clean up the interface in the future.
> _______________________
> David Dykstal
> david_dykstal@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> |------------>
> | From: |
> |------------>
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------|
> |"Schwarz, Tobias" <tobias.schwarz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> |
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------|
> |------------>
> | To: |
> |------------>
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------|
> |David Dykstal/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS, "Oberhuber, Martin"
> <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> |
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------|
> |------------>
> | Cc: |
> |------------>
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------|
> |"Target Management developer discussions"
> <dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> |
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------|
> |------------>
> | Date: |
> |------------>
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------|
> |04/23/08 11:26 PM
>
> |
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------|
> |------------>
> | Subject: |
> |------------>
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------|
> |RE: Please review API Javadoc Tags
>
> |
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------|
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi dave, martin,
>
> In our current implementation we DON'T implement our own
> ISystemFilter.
> Implementing an ISystemFilter was a way I tried to go at the beginning
> of our RSE integration, but there were a lot of problems and a lot of
> internal things we could (should) not implement, so I used the rse
> ISystemFilter implementation.
>
> Our filters have very high complexity, to handle this with the rse
> ISystemFilter we store a XML based filter string that holds all the
> needed data for a filter.
>
> Best regards
> tobias
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Dykstal [mailto:david_dykstal@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Donnerstag, 24. April 2008 04:33
> > To: Oberhuber, Martin
> > Cc: Target Management developer discussions; Schwarz, Tobias
> > Subject: Re: Please review API Javadoc Tags
> >
> > ISystemFilter and ISystemFilterString both have concrete
> > implementations that look to me to be complete. I have no
> > real problem removing the @noimplement from these, I just
> > didn't see the need. Tobias, please let me know if you are
> > implementing these directly and what other interfaces you
> > might need that I've tagged as @noimplement.?
> >
> > Sorry about PropertyType, thought I caught all of those.
> >
> > See my other note about @noextend on interfaces.
> > _______________________
> > David Dykstal
> > david_dykstal@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > |------------>
> > | From: |
> > |------------>
> >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------|
> > |"Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > |
> >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------|
> > |------------>
> > | To: |
> > |------------>
> >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------|
> > |David Dykstal/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS, "Schwarz, Tobias"
> > <tobias.schwarz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > |
> >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------|
> > |------------>
> > | Cc: |
> > |------------>
> >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------|
> > |"Target Management developer discussions"
> > <dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > |
> >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------|
> > |------------>
> > | Date: |
> > |------------>
> >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------|
> > |04/23/08 07:28 PM
> >
> > |
> >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------|
> > |------------>
> > | Subject: |
> > |------------>
> >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------|
> > |Please review API Javadoc Tags
> >
> > |
> >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------|
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > can you please review the tags that you set on
> >
> > ISystemFilterPoolSelectionValidator
> > ISystemFilterPoolWrapper
> > ISystemFilterPoolWrapperInformation
> > ISystemContentsType
> >
> > These have @noextend (which makes no sense for interfaces)
> > but is missing @noimplement.
> >
> > I'm also surprised that you don't want clients to implement
> > ISystemFilter, or ISystemFilterString and related interfaces.
> > I thought that Tobias were implementing thse for the Wind
> > River filter implementations. Is this correct, Tobias? Please
> > check in RSE HEAD.
> >
> > In PropertyType, I found an @noinstantiate, which is moot
> > because there are no public available constructors. I thus
> > got rid of the tag.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind
> > River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
> > http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
