Re: [mylar-dev] enhancements in Mylar team API

[Eugene Kuleshov <eu@xxxxxxxx>]

Mik,

 I'll try to look at implementing new API changes this week.

I've been also thinking about deprecating commit hook and on a second 
thought it is probably not a good idea, or we'll have to reincarnate it 
back at some point.

The initial (and almost forgotten reason for having that feature) was 
to actually support a developer workflow. For example, submit a comment 
to issue tracker (or even resolve an issue) when doing commit.

regards,
Eugene


Mik Kersten wrote:
> OK, I think that we're pretty much there.  Our SDK-specific use of the
> extension point now looks like this:
>
> <extension point="org.eclipse.mylar.team.changeSets">
>   <contextChangeSetManager
>    class="org.eclipse.mylar.internal.team.ContextActiveChangeSetManager"/>
>   <activeChangeSetProvider 
>    class="org.eclipse.mylar.internal.team.ccvs.CvsActiveChangeSetProvider"/>
> </extension>
>
> Where the class bridging the ActiveChangeSet stuff (previously
> AbstractTeamRepositoryProvider) is now AbstractActiveChangeSetProvider.  The
> Mylar Team plug-in uses the ContextActiveChangeSetManager (extends
> AbstractContextChangeSetManager).  
>
> I'll put more details in the integrators doc including the two migration
> steps from the previous "providers, repositories" extension points.  We can
> discuss specifics further on bug:
>
> 166920: [api] address internal API usage of change set management
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=166920
>
> Eugene: please try to implement this and put your feedback there, then I'll
> point the Subversive guys at the migration steps.
>
> Mik
>
>   
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mylar-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mylar-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Eugene Kuleshov
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:59 PM
> > To: Mylar developer discussions
> > Subject: Re: [mylar-dev] enhancements in Mylar team API
> >
> > Mik,
> >
> >   If you deprecated both hasOutgoingChanges and commit calls then we can
> > make repository provider internal...
> >
> >   regards,
> >   Eugene
> >
> >
> > Michael Valenta wrote:
> >     
> > > The issue is that you cannot guarantee backwards compatibility if you
> > > expose internal classes in an API. If you do not require backwards
> > > compatibility, then either approach you suggestwould work. However, if
> > > you want future versions of Mylar to be backwards compatible the
> > > current version you would need to make any classes that references
> > > internals internal as well.
> > >
> > >       
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mylar-dev mailing list
> > mylar-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mylar-dev
> >     
>
> _______________________________________________
> mylar-dev mailing list
> mylar-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mylar-dev
>