| 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
>
_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev