Yes, using the tool might be a good first indicator.
I didn't mean to imply you called the tools a complete answer, just
wanted to clarify my own words :-)
Stefan
On 2017-07-21, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
