RE: [cdt-dev] Should DSF UI packages be an API?

["Marc Khouzam" <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I missed the fact that pawel mentioned -not- renaming
the packages.  So, I agree that it is not much work to 
do 1).  You got my vote. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Leherbauer, 
> Anton (Toni)
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 5:00 AM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Should DSF UI packages be an API?
> 
> I am also for 1).
> I don't think it is more effort on our side (provided we don't rename
> the packages).
> 
> Toni
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rohrbach, Randy
> > Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 5:59 PM
> > To: CDT General developers list.
> > Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Should DSF UI packages be an API?
> > 
> > I know Mark voted for 2 ( because it is easier ). I guess 
> > though from a
> > purist point
> > Of view we should do #1.  This seems more by the book correct to me.
> > 
> > Randy 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Pawel Piech
> > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 3:53 PM
> > To: CDT General developers list.
> > Subject: [cdt-dev] Should DSF UI packages be an API?
> > 
> > DSF integration with Debugger views relies on the Flexible Hierarchy
> > provisional API in Platform Debug.  This DSF component is 
> > designed to be
> > an API itself, which allows debugger integrations to use it 
> an extend
> > it.  However, depending on a provisional API in platform means that
> > technically this part of DSF cannot be  a final API.  The flexible
> > hierarchy API has actually evolved without breaking changes 
> > in Platform
> > 3.4 and 3.5, but we do hope to make it a public API eventually, and
> > because of that DSF UI will break backward compatibility at 
> > that point.
> > 
> > I think we have two choices:
> > 1) Mark the DSF UI APIs as provisional as well.  I don't 
> > think we'd want
> > to rename the packages, even though that is the convention, 
> > but we would
> > at least need to mark them as internal in the plugin manifest file.
> > 2) Leave it as public API, ignore the warnings, and commit to 
> > increasing
> > the major version number of DSF when flexible hierarchy APIs have
> > breaking changes in them.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance for your input,
> > -Pawel
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>