Thanks, Stefan. You're right about the semantics; I did not mean the API
compatibility analysis to give a complete answer,
rather a hint about the amount of (potential) breakage. Based on that, a
decision can be taken whether it can be accepted,
mitigated or a completely new version is a must. If the latter is the case,
then one may decide it's not worth the while because of the cost of
adoption.
Gintas
2017-07-21 11:40 GMT+02:00 Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>:
> Hi
>
> thank you, Gintautas.
>
> Yes, using a tool to verify the API hasn't changed will probably
> help. Over in Commons we run this as a regular part of the release
> process - it is even more important for things that are meant to be
> re-usable components, of course.
>
> I'm afraid that won't be enough, though.
>
> Let me pick a silly example
>
> in Project we currently have
>
> public Project createSubProject() {
> Project subProject = null;
> try {
> subProject = (getClass().newInstance());
> } catch (final Exception e) {
> subProject = new Project();
> }
> initSubProject(subProject);
> return subProject;
> }
>
> and initSubProject is public as well.
>
> A subclass may override initSubProject and rely on the method being
> called by createSubProject. If you refactor createSubProject in a way
> that it no longer calls initSubProject you are going to break the
> subclass. And I don't think the tools are going to tell you as long as
> you keep all existing methods.
>
> This is what I meant with "have to ensure you keep the existing who
> calls which method semantics".
>
> Cheers
>
> Stefan
>
>
> On 2017-07-20, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
>
> > I looked at Project proposal [1].
> > I would suggest running the refactored Ant through japicmp [2] or revapi
> > [3] and examining the binary incompatibilities.
>
> > Gintas
>
> > [1] https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61305
> > [2] http://siom79.github.io/japicmp/
> > [3] http://revapi.org/
>
> > 2017-07-20 16:41 GMT+02:00 Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>:
>
> >> Welcome João Paulo
>
> >> On 2017-07-20, João Paulo Lemes Machado wrote:
>
> >>> I was analyzing the modularization of some classes of Ant, and I
> >>> identified some opportunities for cohesion improvement in the following
> >>> classes:
>
> >>> Javac
> >>> Javadoc
> >>> FTPTask
> >>> FileUtils
> >>> AbstractFileSet
>
> >> Similar to what I said about Project in the bugzilla issue you created
> >> all these classes are part of Ant's public API and need to be treated
> >> with care.
>
> >> Ant has been around for more than fifteen years and an eco system of
> >> extensions has ground around it. This is something that forces us to
> >> be extra careful with refactoring.
>
> >> Of the classes listed above Javadoc and FTPTask are unlikely to have
> >> seen subclasses, Javac may have. FileUtils is unlikely to have seen
> >> subclasses as a lot of its code is inside static methods or is
> >> accessed via a quasi-singleton.
>
> >> Still, when refactoring non-static public/protected methods you really
> >> have to ensure you keep the existing who calls which method semantics
> >> that subclasses may rely on. AbstractFileSet is an extremely dangerous
> >> one, as it has certainly seen a lot of extensions outside of our
> >> control.
>
> >>> TarEntry
>
> >> Is a special case to me. Ant's tar, zip and bzip2 packages have seeded
> >> Commons Compress and from time to time I try to backport changes from
> >> Compress to Ant - usually only the bugfixes. This may become more
> >> difficult when the code bases start to deviate.
>
> >> I'd be interested in hearing what kind of changes you'd like to make,
> >> but please take a look at
> >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-compress.
> >> git;a=blob;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/compress/
> >> archivers/tar/TarArchiveEntry.java
> >> ?
>
> >> The class has undergone several changes that haven't been reflected
> >> back, maybe it is mostly an issue of backporting those changes?
>
> >> Cheers
>
> >> Stefan
>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
>
>
