[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [platform-dev] [osgi-wg] How to document OSGi extensibility?
|
> Mostly because the documentation is the wrong way around. We want to
> make clear from the generic editor user's POV that a whiteboard
> pattern can be used
Actually the nice thing about whiteboardpattern is that the provider of
the service has not to care about its consumers (in contrast to
extension point semantics).
That mean, instead of implementing content assist *for* generic editor,
my plugin can simply *offer* content assist for a given content type,
anyone is free to use that (including generic editor) but not limited to
and if the API is well designed.
That means instead we can documenting/telling people if they want to
provide content assist for a content-type they can simply register the
serviceinterface. If there are other places that could use
content-assist for a given content-type we dont need to tell people we
simply need to consume the service there and all is set!
Even external plugins can use the service without an need for adding
another extensionpoint and asking people to implement that.
So from a user POV it makes much more sense to document at the service
interface the intent to use this as a "WhiteBoardService".
Am 22.01.21 um 20:31 schrieb Wim Jongman:
The annotations idea is very creative but I don't think it is the answer
to Mickaels question.
Mostly because the documentation is the wrong way around. We want to
make clear from the generic editor user's POV that a whiteboard pattern
can be used to inject code, not from the interface. Besides, who would
know that that annotation even exists?
IMO, Tom has the perfect simple answer. We should add to the javadoc of
generic editor and to the extension points docu the an alternative way
of consuming.
Cheers,
Wim
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:48 PM Christoph Läubrich
<laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
As its about to document a service interface is intended to be consumed
by the (OSGi) Whiteboard pattern why should it be a bad name? :-)
The context is the following:
There is a service interface that is consumed by some other component
using the Whiteboardpattern.
The question was: How can we clearly document that it is supposed to be
consumed and what service properties are meant to be present.
Thats similar to what the MetaDataService tries to provide for
component
configurations.
My very simple first proposal was to have an
@Whiteboard
annotation on the service interface that documents the possible service
properties as strings that map to final static fields. I attached an
example here
------------------
@Whiteboard(properties = {"SERVICE_PROPERTY_ADAPTABLE_CLASS",
"SERVICE_PROPERTY_ADAPTER_NAMES"})
public interface IAdapterFactory {
/**
* Service property to use when registering a factory as
OSGi-service
to declare the adaptable class type, this is a
multi-string-property, if
more than one is given the factory will be register multiple times
* @since 3.14
*/
static final String SERVICE_PROPERTY_ADAPTABLE_CLASS =
"adaptableClass"; //$NON-NLS-1$
/**
* Optional service property to use when registering a
factory as
OSGi-service to declare the possible adapter types. If the property is
given, the service is only queried when actually required, this is a
multi-string-property.
* @since 3.14
*/
static final String SERVICE_PROPERTY_ADAPTER_NAMES =
"adapterNames";
//$NON-NLS-1$
....
Am 22.01.21 um 16:39 schrieb Jürgen Albert:
> Providing some kind of Service and/or annotation to provide
> documentation aether at runtime or at development time crossed my
mind
> as well and could be a good Idea.
>
> It seems that I miss a bit of context here however. What are you
> actually proposing?
>
> BTW: With the little context I have, @Whiteboard would be a bad name
> choice, because the Whiteboard concept is a bit loaded in the
OSGi Context.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jürgen.
>
> Am 22/01/2021 um 16:04 schrieb Christoph Läubrich:
>> OSGi Alliance was moved to Eclipse last year... :-)
>>
>> OSGi already defines some annotations for the package level see
, OSGi
>> DS makes heavy use with great success of annotations.
>>
>> The problem is more that the Eclipse way of thinking is sometimes
>> incompatible with standard OSGi ;-)
>>
>> But I think if a draft for a @Whiteboard annotation could be
provided
>> in Eclipse it might become the reference-implementation of an
official
>> Eclipse specification later on :-)
>>
>> [1]
>>
https://blog.osgi.org/2018/07/osgi-r7-highlights-bundle-annotations.html
<https://blog.osgi.org/2018/07/osgi-r7-highlights-bundle-annotations.html>
>>
>>
>> Am 22.01.21 um 15:56 schrieb Mickael Istria:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 3:42 PM Christoph Läubrich
>>> <laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good point! I'd like to enhance my annotation idea in the
>>> following way:
>>>
>>> @Whiteboard(extensions = {
>>> "org.eclipse.ui.genericeditor.contentAssistProcessors"
>>> }
>>> properties = {"xyz"}
>>> }
>>> )
>>>
>>> that way it would be possible to automatically read the
meta-data
>>> and
>>> transform them into help or whatever...
>>>
>>>
>>> Eclipse Platform should avoid the funk of building and relying on
>>> Eclipse-specific documentation annotations for OSGi. It looks
like in
>>> this case, it's more interesting to just bring the idea to the
OSGi
>>> Alliance so it can become specified or shared with other OSGi
>>> projects to identify the best solution in a standard-ish way; and
>>> then Eclipse Platform could start using them.
>>> Concretely, generating documentation is a difficult task, see how
>>> javadoc or PDE extension point doc-gen are complex; we don't
want to
>>> start dealing with such extra complex new problem in Platform.
>>>
>>> Note that 1 issue introduced by the idea of documenting on the
>>> interface is that it kinds of break the layers: the
>>> IContentAssistProcessor interface is not aware of Generic
Editor, so
>>> it looks like we'd suddenly have to make it kind of aware of
it, at
>>> least in the doc, creating a (very soft, not technically binding)
>>> dependency cycle. That seems undesired to me.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> platform-dev mailing list
>>> platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
<https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osgi-wg mailing list
>> osgi-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:osgi-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>> unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-wg
<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-wg>
>
_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
<https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev>
_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
