Re: [eclemma-dev] Let's make EclEmma 3.0.0 free of a legacy not necessar

[Lars Vogel <lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Evgeny,

In platform we use "internal" for packages which are meant to remain
internal and still exported with "x-internal" so that we do not limit
the creativity of our users.
For packages which we plan to release as API we avoid using "internal
and only use "x-internal". If it turns out that the design was OK we
can release the API without breaking any client by simply removing
"x-internal". If it turns out that a change is necessary we can still
change it, as "x-internal" gives us the right.

HTH

Best regards, Lars

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Evgeny Mandrikov <mandrikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> This weekend we had a discussion with Marc about upcoming first release of
> EclEmma under Eclipse Foundation umbrella and APIs:
> As anyway we break compatibility with previous versions due to renamings of
> packages, will be safer to do 3.0.0 without providing an APIs. And expose
> them later with careful design based on the actual needs and requests,
> rather than blindly keep current ~5 years old APIs that are not necessarily
> used, and then maintain their compatibility. Not so very nice side effect of
> this - "org.eclipse.eclemma.ui" will use "org.eclipse.eclemma.core" thru
> "x-friends" and "x-internal", while currently uses only publicly exported
> packaged. But we agreed that this is acceptable price.
>
> Today I've met Mickael at AlpesJUG during "Java Code Coverage Mechanics"
> session, and he confirmed that this is indeed the safest option and actually
> quite common practice for projects that move to Eclipse Foundation.
>
> So seems that the only remaining question - what is preferred way to do
> this?
> 1) Marc proposed to simply keep packages as is and only mark them as
> "x-internal".
> I personally don't like this option. Also
> https://wiki.eclipse.org/Naming_Conventions#API_Packages clearly states that
> non-API package should be explicitly be named "internal".
> 2) Actually do renaming of packages. I might be wrong, but seems that
> "internal.provisional" is a good fit (
> https://wiki.eclipse.org/Provisional_API_Guidelines ). Allowing to keep
> clean distinction between what "org.eclipse.eclemma.ui" can use and what
> should not.
>
> So do you have any thoughts/advices about this?
>
> Regards,
> Evgeny
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclemma-dev mailing list
> eclemma-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
> this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclemma-dev
>



-- 
Eclipse Platform UI and e4 project co-lead
CEO vogella GmbH

Haindaalwisch 17a, 22395 Hamburg
Amtsgericht Hamburg: HRB 127058
Geschäftsführer: Lars Vogel, Jennifer Nerlich de Vogel
USt-IdNr.: DE284122352
Fax (040) 5247 6322, Email: lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxxxx, Web: http://www.vogella.com