[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[equinox-dev] Re: Alternate Extension Point namespace
- From: Mel Martinez <melm@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:00:19 -0500
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
Mark Rogalski wrote:
> For eRCP we would like to have a smaller org.eclipse.ui plugin that has
> fewer graphics and only a subset of extension points. However, producing
> plugin with the same symbolic name but different content does not seem
> a good practice since the two plugins could potentially be confused. The
> problem is that Extension Points are known by their "plugin symbolic
> + "extension name". Thus, Extensions Points can not be provided by
> plugin and still be found.
> Tom Watson mentioned that there had been some discussion of loosening
> restriction. Is there anything currently in the works that would resolve
> this problem or would you entertain adding a "namespace=" tag to allow
> changing the default namespace?
In my humble opinion, the combination of bundle symbolic name (i.e. plugin
id) plus version should always point to a binary indistinguishable object.
In other words, if i have a dependency on something that I reference with
"plugin id"+"version", then that should always be the same no matter where
I find it. Any instance of that combination should be indistinguishable
from another instance.
It is a breakage of this to reuse plugin ids to expose an api subset unless
there is a version# change (and a major version# change at that).
I would vote for the ability of one plugin to use the extensions meant for
another plugin as the solution to the above problem. That probably needs
some management controls to make sure no security holes are introduced.
Just my $.02.