1) only if this means 3.7.1.
2) Not sure if this is possible since the classes are in a public package.
3) I think we are making an overly big deal of this whole thing.
The API proposed has been reviewed by Dave and others a long time ago and it has not changed since then.
The feedback from the last few days has only been focused on naming... which, as we know too well in Equinox, is a sign that there is no other issues.
The other thing to remember is that should I had the chance to commit this API right after EclipseCon, the crappy names that I would have come up would have been carved in stone and we would not be here...
I have attached a new patch to the bug report.
On 2011-04-20, at 10:35 AM, Thomas Watson wrote:
So here are the options as I see them.
1) postpone this new API until next release
2) propose the API as provisional (i.e. use x-internal etc)
3) work on the API as much as possible to gain confidence that it is API we can live with and support in future releases.
3) seems rather risky at this point in time. Is 2) an acceptable approach?
Tom
<graycol.gif>Jeff McAffer ---04/20/2011 09:29:49 AM---If there is no objection I will release that during the week so we can actually work on the code together. I'm not a real fan o
<ecblank.gif>
From: | <ecblank.gif>
Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
<ecblank.gif>
To: | <ecblank.gif>
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
<ecblank.gif>
Cc: | <ecblank.gif>
P2 developer discussions <p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
<ecblank.gif>
Date: | <ecblank.gif>
04/20/2011 09:29 AM |
<ecblank.gif>
Subject: | <ecblank.gif>
Re: [equinox-dev] [p2-dev] Equinox/p2 meeting minutes posted |
If there is no objection I will release that during the week so we can actually work on the code together.
I'm not a real fan of this approach in the last week of M7. If bogus API gets into M7 then we'll have a hell of a time removing/changing it. We almost always end up regretting those last minute pushes. For the code itself I don't care but releasing API that is not baked is less than optimal.
Jeff
On 2011-04-19, at 1:30 PM, Pascal Rapicault wrote:
This issue has been discussed at the end of M6 with Tom and it has been agreed at the time that we will add this new API in M7 (I had not foreseen it happening so late).
I just attached a new patch taking the feedback into account. The focus is on API since this is the most pressing issue for the rest of the week. The code needs to be polished.
If there is no objection I will release that during the week so we can actually work on the code together.
On 2011-04-19, at 9:27 AM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
Darn. you are talking about https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=337016?
That's new API right? I took a look but am not sure what the final form is that you are thinking of. Susan had some comments and David as well. The original patch from you had a method getAgent() which seems suspect as it does effectively the ServiceHelper trick. Do you have any examples of this API in use.
If you are going to look to release this please post a new patch with the proposed shape, some example use and mark for review. Ideally we could get John and/or DJ to review (I'll review as PMC guy). Please do not release until it has been reviewed.
Jeff
On 2011-04-18, at 5:22 PM, Pascal Rapicault wrote:
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
