This got replaced by the getMin getMax on IRequirement. You will also notice that IRequiredCapability is no longer API. On 2010-03-08, at 9:10 PM, Thomas M Houser wrote:
In "eclipse-SDK-I20100217-1031-win32.zip",
the isOptional() method of IRequiredCapability was removed. This
is a change from 3.6M5. Where did this go? What should be
used instead?
Good point. The work on MetadataFactory needs to be done.
<Mail Attachment.gif>Thomas
M Houser ---22/01/2010 04:02:42 PM---I understand that there are potentially
many forms of IRequirement. That makes sense, but that does not mean that
the API prov
<Mail Attachment.gif>
From:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
Thomas M Houser <tmhouser@xxxxxxxxxx>
|
<Mail Attachment.gif>
To:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
P2 developer discussions <p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
<Mail Attachment.gif>
Date:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
22/01/2010 04:02 PM
|
<Mail Attachment.gif>
Subject:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
Re: [p2-dev] IRequiredCapability internal? |
I understand that there are potentially many forms of IRequirement. That
makes sense, but that does not mean that the API provided by IRequiredCapability
is not still useful to clients. They just need to be aware that this isn't
the only kind of IRequirement. For example, we create requirements via
MetadataFactory.createRequiredCapability(). How do we create concrete requirements
without an API?
IRequiredCapability was limiting in what it could express. For example
it could not express negation and or'ing, and it could only described dependencies
on something that had a namespace, a name and a version and we are striving
to express requirements and capabilities on other things (for example BundleExecutionEnvironment).
As such, to ensure for API evolution we have turned the too specific IRequiredCapability
into an IRequirement.
IProvidedCapability is still API, but it is very likely that it will either
be turned into something more generic, or be marked internal if we don't
have the time to make it API.
As for IRequirementChange the reference to IRequiredCapability is something
that we have still left to do (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=299506)
The situation of the API now is that we have tried to move all the types
that we needed to see made API in a final package for M5, however we still
have work to do to reach the final state for 3.6 (hopefully by M6).
If you have feedback, it is very much appreciated,
HTH
<Mail Attachment.gif>Thomas
M Houser ---22/01/2010 03:23:08 PM---I'm migrating from Eclipse 3.5 to
Eclipse 3.6 (I20100119-0800). Can someone explain why IRequiredCapability
is now internal in
<Mail Attachment.gif>
From:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
Thomas M Houser <tmhouser@xxxxxxxxxx>
|
<Mail Attachment.gif>
To:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
<Mail Attachment.gif>
Date:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
22/01/2010 03:23 PM
|
<Mail Attachment.gif>
Subject:
| <Mail Attachment.gif>
[p2-dev] IRequiredCapability internal? |
I'm migrating from Eclipse 3.5 to Eclipse 3.6 (I20100119-0800). Can someone
explain why IRequiredCapability is now internal in 3.6 when it was provisional
API in 3.5? What is the rationale for making this internal? Why is IProvidedCapability
considered API when IRequiredCapability is not? Why does the IRequirementChange
API have a matches() method whose parameter type is IRequiredCapability
an internal API? _______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________ p2-dev mailing list p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
|