[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [wtp-dev] Too few Internal non-API use bugs?

They are conceptually similar. We have the "api violation" reports to focus on certain types of violations.

They "miss" some things, such as currently I think they do not capture constants.

But, they use the concept of a "component.xml" file, where the API is defined, so it captures some additional things
that "access rules" do not capture.

Such as "do not instantiate" and "do not subclass" rules that are part of a proper API definition.

Igor Fedorenko <igorfie@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

08/30/2006 12:08 AM

Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Re: [wtp-dev] Too few Internal non-API use bugs?

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between "internal API
violations" as referred here and "Discouraged access" JDT compiler error

David M Williams wrote:
> Our 1.5.0 release had *27 plugins* with "internal API violations".
> See
> http://download.eclipse.org/webtools/downloads/drops/R1.5/R-1.5.0-200606281455/apiresults/api-violation-summary.html
> Our last declared 1.5.1 maintenance build had *15 plugins* with such
> violations
> See
> http://download.eclipse.org/webtools/downloads/drops/R1.5/M-1.5.1-200608241726/apiresults/api-violation-summary.html
> And, I think 2 of those should not be on the list, that fixes have been
> made, but the plugin owners apparently did not release the fixes?
> wsdl.ui and rdb.connection.ui?
> So, 27 to 13? A reduction of  half the plugins with violations?  In a
> maintenance release?
> First, this tells me to say thanks to everyone making the fixes ... and
> while I made most of them, I appreciate everyone else who helped.
> Second, most of these fixes were for "easy" things, for which there were
> obvious API alternatives or commonly used work-arounds (such
> as "copying" strings, instead of refering to non-api versions of the
> strings).
> Third ... what the heck happened for 1.5.0 release ... well, I guess I
> took my eye off the list and just assumed every component was carefully
> managing their usage. Since that wasn't the case, I will be focusing on
> this serioius problem as we finish up 151 and begin 2.0,
> In particular, of the 13 remaining plugins, I see only 5 or so
> "[internal api]" bugs opened in WTP.  We should have at least one bug open
> in WTP for each plugin that shows up in the violations report, just to
> explain the usage, and if its really required, point to the
> feature request we've opened to "fix" in the future.
> So, maybe the bugs weren't open? Or, have something other than [internal
> api] in their subject?
> In either case, we'll start a little "component owners hot seat" section
> of the status call, so that if the bugs are not open by the status call,
> we'll go through the plugins in violation one by one, and the component
> owners can explain on the spot. I need to understand
> these, and what we need from other projects next release!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> wtp-dev mailing list
> wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev

wtp-dev mailing list