[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [p2-dev] @noimplement on IMetadataRepository ?
- From: John Arthorne <arthorne.eclipse@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:49:48 -0500
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=xQIMgiui4Bxq/h8L2Kj3wmGnGvKMsqOn5dfLvVeW5bjlGuETi4e2AFx44oM5qavSdQ 8Yf+g/+v/b1rV8ujBLJIIXvXREtNJbD5DIDQjN0QKfielJ2Vv0io0/Q6GjLsb85nnnkm 1m/NdsBWluXYPmtxSCOo/6AwAau6qDDUMQzdM=
Yes, clients are supposed to subclass AbstractMetadataRepository rather than implementing the interface directly. The restriction is there so that we can add methods to this interface in the future - an interface implemented directly by clients can never be evolved in a compatible way. This sounds like quite a harsh limitation of EMF - many Eclipse APIs are moving towards abstract base classes rather than interfaces to allow for compatible API evolution.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>
Why is the IMetadataRepository interface annotated with a @noimplement? Not only do we get warnings all over the p2 code, I also wonder what I I am supposed to do if I really want to write a IMetadataRepository of my own. Our Aggregator already has one (backed by an ecore model) and we might want to write others that are backed by databases etc.
Are clients supposed to derive the AbstractMetadataRepository? For us, that's problematic since we need to inherit the EObject from ecore. Or are there other reasons for this annotation?
p2-dev mailing list