Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Is exporting all packages a best practice

[Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

Wayne

On 02/02/2011 04:26 PM, Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:
> It would be worth pointing out that there is debate on whether “export
> everything” is a good practice or not. There are good arguments either
> way and I don’t think there will ever be general consensus on this. I am
> not going to bother listing the arguments as it is not my intention to
> re-start that debate. The referenced wiki is the approach adopted by the
> Eclipse project and its subprojects, but is by no means a final word on
> the subject.
> 
>  
> 
> Every project should discuss this issue to make sure that all of the
> project’s committers are on board with whatever approach is selected.
> 
>  
> 
> - Konstantin
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of
> *Thomas Watson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 02, 2011 1:17 PM
> *To:* Cross project issues
> *Subject:* Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Is exporting all packages a
> best practice?
> 
>  
> 
> This is an equinox only feature.  The unfortunate consequence is that on
> another framework implementation the x-internal (or x-friends)
> directives will be ignored and the package will be exported with not
> option to run in "strict mode".
> 
> 
> Tom
> 
>  
> 
> -----cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
> 
> To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> From: Eike Stepper <stepper@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:stepper@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 02/02/2011 03:34AM
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Is exporting all packages a best
> practice?
> 
> Am 02.02.2011 10:17, schrieb Daniel Megert:
>>>> See http://wiki.eclipse.org/Export-Package
>>> Thank you, Dani. That may be what I was looking for.
>>>
>>> But it does not explain the difference between or consequences of:
>>>
>>> a) exporting a non-API package as x-internal
>>> b) not exporting it at all
>> Adding x-internal helps your clients during development time as it warns
>> them (discouraged access) when they use a type from such a package. During
>> runtime, it allows that in non-strict (i.e. default) mode (see
>> osgi.resolverMode runtime option) the types from an x-internal package can
>> be loaded and hence clients can use types from non-API packages. If you
>> don't add the non-API packages with x-internal to the manifest then any
>> app using code from such a package won't even work in non-strict mode as
>> the types would not be loaded by the class loader. Once you start in
>> strict mode all types from x-internal packages won't load either.
> Thanks again. I've also just verified that (you may laugh) and I fully
> agree now.
> 
> Is "x-internal" spec'ed in OSGi or is it an Equinox thing?
> 
> Cheers
> /Eike
> 
> ----
> http://www.esc-net.de
> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev