I agree that tooling is needed in order to make this somewhat feasable. On the OSGi mailing list there was a question posted about using EMF on another framework implementation. One of the issues was that EMF uses Require-Bundle on org.eclipse.core.runtime. This ends up pulling in lots of dependencies, one of which is org.eclipse.osgi. This makes it impossible to use EMF on another Framework impl. If EMF instead used Import-Package to get its packages then it is conceivable that EMF could have its dependancies resolved in another Framework impl. But using Import-Package for the eclipse packages without versions is dangerous because you do not know what you will get.
Eclipse team rarely uses Import-Package, this maybe because it is a bit
harder. But for now I would advise against it because it is dangerous
without versions. Until versions are established EMF should *not* move to
Import-Package IMO.
Tom
From: John Arthorne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org>
Date: 01/11/2008 03:27 PM
Subject: Re: [equinox-dev] Fw: [Bug 214801] [api tools] consider
Export-Package as API
I don't think we can even contemplate this without full tooling automation.
As Tom says, we struggle to keep our bundle version numbers correct as it
is. We can maintain package versions manually up to a point, such as base
framework packages and service packages, but any wider scope would become
unmanageable. For most of the wider Eclipse team that rarely/never uses
import package, there is no immediate need to version at the package level.
Thomas Watson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: To
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Equinox development mailing list
rg <equinox-dev@eclipse.org>
cc
01/11/2008 03:45 PM Subject
Re: [equinox-dev] Fw: [Bug 214801]
[api tools] consider
Please respond to Export-Package as API
Equinox development mailing
list
<equinox-dev@eclipse.org>
Without tooling this will be difficult. If we wanted to use the big hammer
approach the we would have the API tooling (or plain old PDE) mark exports
without versions as a warning/error by default or update each project
settings in eclipse to make it an error. Now the question is what version
would all the well established packages use? Most eclipse packages do not
specify a version which means they have been using the default version of
0.0.0. If a package is being versioned for the first time what should its
version be?
- Start off using 1.0.0
- Use the Bundle-Version
I favor using the Bundle-Version for well established packages because if
we decide to add versions to the maintenance streams then we have room to
downgrade the versions as appropriate. Completely new packages in a release
should start off with version 1.0.
I have been trying to version the exports of org.eclipse.osgi for the past
few releases. It is hard to keep track of without tooling. Just look at how
many times we forget to increment the bundle versions in Eclipse and that
is just one version number per bundle to maintain. Now we will have to
maintain each package version individually which is a much bigger task.
Hopefully more advanced API tooling could detect that the API package has
changed since last release and needs to be incremented. Does the new API
tooling currently do something like this for Bundle-Version?
Tom
Inactive hide details for Jeff McAffer ---01/11/2008 02:17:11 PM---Tom
raises a good point that we keep letting slide. Are we gJeff McAffer ---01
/11/2008 02:17:11 PM---Tom raises a good point that we keep letting slide.
Are we going to ensure that all export package statements have version num
From: Jeff McAffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: equinox-dev@eclipse.org
Date: 01/11/2008 02:17 PM
Subject: [equinox-dev] Fw: [Bug 214801] [api tools] consider
Export-Package as API
Tom raises a good point that we keep letting slide. Are we going to ensure
that all export package statements have version numbers for 3.4? If we have
API tooling for this then it would likely be reasonable to start doing.
Even without tooling today, we could introduce version numbers based on the
bundle version number for this release and then evolve from there (with
tooling that will come in the future).
Jeff
----- Forwarded by Jeff McAffer/Ottawa/IBM on 01/11/2008 01:22 PM -----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.org
To
01/11/2008 10:50 AM Jeff McAffer/Ottawa/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
Subject
[Bug 214801] [api tools] consider
Export-Package as API
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=214801
Product/Component: PDE / Incubators
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-01-11
10:50:13 -0400 ---
I agree with the concept. All exported packages which are not marked
x-internal:=true should be versioned. Without this it makes using
Import-Package very limiting because you cannot specify what version of the
package you require. Packages marked as x-friends are questionable, but I
can
see friend bundles depending on a particular friend package version.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the
bug._______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
<<inline: graycol.gif>>
<<inline: ecblank.gif>>
<<inline: 1E033499.gif>>
<<inline: 1E419373.gif>>
_______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
