[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [wtp-dev] Notice of upcoming change in provisional api

I separated the potentially breaking changes from the part that’s purely additive. I released the additive part and opened two new bugs to track what still needs to be done after the new process is established.

 

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=158082

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=158083

 

- Konstantin

 


From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:34 PM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Notice of upcoming change in provisional api

 

You say "Ample notice" has been given ... and, I assumed you checked the scan data to confirm not used? But ... remember, ample to us is not necessarily ample to others ...
[kk] Scan still show usage. I don’t know whether this means that scans are out of date or that adopters haven’t migrated off the deprecated api. Multiple messages went out to the wtp-dev mailing list prior to 1.5 release regarding this. The messages outlined exactly the api involved and layed out the timeframe (deprecation in 1.5.x and removal in 2.0). The same content was also placed in the ISV docs at the location that I specified. The code itself was marked with deprecation syntax where possible and runtime warning messages were provided for some of the api where deprecation would not be easily apparent. Given the provisional status of this api, I would consider this “ample notice.”

 

One suggestion I am going to make is that "new" work or "big changes" take place in a temporary branch, so potential reviewers could "get at it" easier for review.

[kk] I think this makese sense, to an extent, but only for very large and complicated changes. An exception rather than a rule. The problem is that when we have a major feature release like 2.0 we will have a lot of new functionality being developed. Under the proposed approach we would have quite a handful of these private branches. That would create a lot of maintenance overhead in keeping them all up to date. The longer these branches exist, the more overhead is created and the more risk there is that some integration mistake will be made.

 

Another suggestion I'll be making is that we "stage" our changes, to API or provisional APIs, so that "we change them once", and that's it. I've heard complaints from adopters that they'd have to change a little one milestone, then change a little the next milestone, then some the next milestone  ... sometimes that's unavoidable, but our plan should be to "do it once"... so, it'd be good to release code early in a milestone, once we knew if we were at a point of "that's it", no more changes planned.

[kk] I am not sure how practical this is. A component may need to make multiple api changes during a release for various separate reasons. With the approach that you are proposing, the first of these changes would force the component into a branch from which it cannot emerge until all of the changes for the release are done, which may be towards the end of the release. We are talking about a branch that may exist for half a year or longer. That’s very bad. It seems to me that the adopters who integrate at the level of the milestones should expect incremental changes in those milestones. If they don’t want to deal with these incremental changes, perhaps they should be integrating at the level of the releases not at the level of the milestones.

 

Are you at that point? Or do you have more changes planned?

[kk] There are certainly further changes planned for the 2.0 release.

 

I won't ask what your plans for API are, yet, because then you'd ask me about Java 5 :) .... which, btw, I'm almost ready to have that discussion too!
[kk] I can answer this. The status of declaring official api on the faceted project framework component hinges on four things: (a) ability to use Java 5 language features, (b) completion of the project to create the common runtime modeling component (aka elimination of the runtime bridge), (c) settling the question of whether this code will ever move down to the platform, and (d) resolution of all bugs and enhancement requests that require api changes. Hopefully all of these will be resolved by the end of 2.0 and it will be possible to declare api.

 

So, if you wouldn't mind waiting a bit, then maybe you could be our first user of the new processes ... and then you could help improve the process for the next guy?
[But, if its urgent for you to get these in ... doesn't sound like you'd break adopters and you'd fix some important bugs, so, don't let me slow you down .... too much :)  ]

[kk] I would strongly prefer not to have to hold on to these changes. I imagine it would take us a while to agree on a new process and waiting for the process to be resolved would make it rather difficult for me to make further progress on the 2.0 work items (changes stack up behind this). The notice mail should provide sufficient information for any party that’s concerned about this change to conduct a review.

 

[kk] While we are on the subject, I’d like to start the discussion of what our policy is going to be regarding api-breaking changes (I am not talking just provisional api here) for the 2.0 release. In order to make progress on several of our major work items (the common runtime modeling framework is one example), it will be necessary to break api. If we allow this for some components, I wonder whether we should make a general statement that the 2.0 release is a chance for all the components to review their api and make the necessary changes. I am not advocating gratuitous changes here, I am just suggesting that we have come a long way since our first release and we could all use a chance to take a step back and apply lessons learned towards bettering our api. A couple of us have been batting some ideas for mitigating impact to adopters due to this. One idea is to extend the life of the 1.5.x maintenance line further than it would normally extend to, say 1.5.6, 1.5.7, etc. This way adopters who are not ready to absorb api changes can have a release vehicle for important fixes. It may also be forth it to have a small feature release, say 1.6, to deliver Eclipse 3.3 compatibility and perhaps minimal Java EE 5 support (basically enough so that we don’t get in the way of development of Java EE 5 apps like we currently do). In either case, just some ideas to get a discussion going...

 

- Konstantin

 


From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:06 PM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] Notice of upcoming change in provisional api

 


Thanks Konstantin, these sound like important changes, and sounds like you've used care not to break any adopters, but I'll throw in a few complicating process questions.

You say "Ample notice" has been given ... and, I assumed you checked the scan data to confirm not used? But ... remember, ample to us is not necessarily ample to others ...

Also, I am in the middle of proposing some new processes governing how we change code, how we allow proper review, etc. I haven't "published" it yet, since I asked the PMC for a sanity check
and make sure I wasn't way off base ... but will hint here at some of the things I'm suggesting  .... I'm not sure they even apply to your cases ... but, without some review process, no one may ever know ... so, some review
process would be nice.

One suggestion I am going to make is that "new" work or "big changes" take place in a temporary branch, so potential reviewers could "get at it" easier for review. And, a component team level decision made as to when ready to go into head.
Another suggestion I'll be making is that we "stage" our changes, to API or provisional APIs, so that "we change them once", and that's it. I've heard complaints from adopters that they'd have to change a little one milestone, then change a little the next milestone, then some the next milestone  ... sometimes that's unavoidable, but our plan should be to "do it once"... so, it'd be good to release code early in a milestone, once we knew if we were at a point of "that's it", no more changes planned. Are you at that point? Or do you have more changes planned?

I won't ask what your plans for API are, yet, because then you'd ask me about Java 5 :) .... which, btw, I'm almost ready to have that discussion too!

So, if you wouldn't mind waiting a bit, then maybe you could be our first user of the new processes ... and then you could help improve the process for the next guy?

[But, if its urgent for you to get these in ... doesn't sound like you'd break adopters and you'd fix some important bugs, so, don't let me slow you down .... too much :)  ]








"Konstantin Komissarchik" <kosta@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

09/19/2006 09:21 PM

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

To

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

cc

 

Subject

[wtp-dev] Notice of upcoming change in provisional api

 

 

 




This is a notice that a change will be released soon that has potential to cause breakage to users of the faceted project framework’s provisional api. The change will be made to the HEAD code stream affecting only the 2.0 release code line, so there will be plenty of time for the downstream code to react if it is affected by this change.
 
The change has two parts to it:
 
1. The api and extension points that have been deprecated during the 1.5.0 release have been removed. Information about exactly which api has been deprecated and now removed can be found in the following section of the WTP docs: Web Standard Tools Developer Guide -> Programmer’s Guide -> Faceted Project Framework -> New for 1.5. Ample notice has been made given in the past regarding this.
 
2. In order to fix a performance issue described by https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=146321 some api changes were necessary in order to remove the assumption embedded in the api that facet version comparison is always done directly on version string. The api change allowed the comparison information to be cached thereby improving performance. The caching also allowed some api improvement to take place because several methods no longer needed to throw exceptions. I do not anticipate this change to cause problems for adopters as the affected api is only infrequently used outside the framework itself. The api usage scan did not produce any hits.
 
Both IProjectFacetVersion and IRuntimeComponentVersion now extend Comparable.
 
The following methods no longer throw exceptions:
 
  IProjectFacet.getLatestVersion()
  IProjectFacet.getLatestSupportedVersion( IRuntime runtime )
  IProjectFacet.getSortedVersions( boolean ascending )
  IRuntimeComponentType.getLatestVersion()
  IRuntimeComponentType.getSortedVersions( boolean ascending )
 
The IVersionExpr.evaluate( String ) method has been replaced with IVersionExpr.check( Comparable ) method.

- Konstantin

>>Register now for BEA World 2006 --- See http://www.bea.com/beaworld<<
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev