> As said, I'd like to file two AC bugs to further discuss it (one for the process, the other for the naming policy), if we get some consensus that it's a topic worth > discussing. What do you think, John?
Definitely worth discussing. I'm less convinced that the discussion will lead to consensus, but it's still worth bringing up. One valid issue brought up in the past is that projects in their early stages face very different demands and community pressures than mature projects, so there isn't necessarily a one-size-fits-all policy. But this makes it an ideal discussion on the arch council where there is representation from all projects. John "Oberhuber, Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/21/2008 10:20 AM Please respond to E4 developer list <[email protected]> To "E4 developer list" <[email protected]> cc Subject RE: [eclipse-incubator-e4-dev] Re: Avoiding Bloat > I'm happy to clarify it, but I don't understand what is unclear or illogical about it. I think it's a matter of defining what "provional API" means. In my opinion, it could also be named "API under construction". Given that the thing under construction was not promoted into API at some release, does not mean that all workers are pulled off the construction area and it's left in its current non-finished state forever. It also doesn't mean that the process of soliciting community input is stopped at this point and the area turns into something internal that only committers should care about. I'm really trying to come up with a process for this API construction work that helps soliciting input, by helping early adopters at all stages, clarifying (and unifying) the policies based on what we think are best practices. >From that point of view, I'd think that when the team (committers + community) cannot agree on freezing some API at one point, they should likely continue to work on things until they are happy. In other words, provisional API may remain -- in the state that a project is using for provisional API, which is "internal.provisional" packages for the Eclipse project, with the promise (or rather non-promise) to change it at any time without notice. As said, I'd like to file two AC bugs to further discuss it (one for the process, the other for the naming policy), if we get some consensus that it's a topic worth discussing. What do you think, John? Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Arthorne Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:10 PM To: E4 developer list Subject: RE: [eclipse-incubator-e4-dev] Re: Avoiding Bloat The difference in policy between [2] and [4] is because those documents are written by different people for different audiences. [2] was written by me at the request of the Eclipse Project PMC to codify our guidelines (which had been around much longer but never written down). Those guidelines were only intended to be for the Eclipse top-level project. I don't know the history of document [4], but I suspect it was written by the Foundation with the intent to provide guidelines that all top-level projects could live with. I don't know what projects follow them, but I know some projects put provisional API in non-internal packages. There was never broad agreement across projects on this point which likely led to that compromise table with several different flavours of pseudo-API. > [2] After the API freeze, there is really no such thing as "provisional API". Either it is complete and committed platform > API, or it is internal code. > Hm... I know this passage and agree that it is not in line with my current > thinking. Perhaps Boris, John or McQ could explain? API is primarily a contract that implies long term support and a promise of compatibility across releases. If something is provisional and subject to change, then there is no implied support or compatibility, so it is not API. This doesn't mean it can't become API at some point in the future. We certainly do have packages with "*.internal.provisional.*" in one release, which is then validated and polished into real API in the next release. But, at the time the package is "internal.provisional", it is internal code and subject to change. I'm happy to clarify it, but I don't understand what is unclear or illogical about it. John "Oberhuber, Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/21/2008 07:59 AM Please respond to E4 developer list <[email protected]> To "E4 developer list" <[email protected]> cc Subject RE: [eclipse-incubator-e4-dev] Re: Avoiding Bloat Hello Krzysztof, [2] After the API freeze, there is really no such thing as "provisional API". Either it is complete and committed platform API, or it is internal code. Hm... I know this passage and agree that it is not in line with my current thinking. Perhaps Boris, John or McQ could explain? For me, it seems OK to have provisional API live in "internal" packages even across multiple releases. Just assuming that some provisional API was proposed and just didn't get ready in time. This can't be a reason for never ever working on promoting it in the future? The passage cited does not seem logical, and I'm wondering if it could be rewritten for clarification. [2] Technically, a provisional API can change arbitrarily or be removed at any time without notice. Yes, I agree that this doesn't sound friendly for provisional API adopters at all, and does not help encouraging early adoption. I think that we should consider more helpful policies, such as Provisional API can be removed at any milestone build, provided that it has been marked @deprecated in the previous milestone build. Discussing such policies for provisional API (making a recommendation for all Eclipse projects to adopt them) would be a good topic for the Architecture Council. The goal of the discussion should be increasing early adoption and feedback for provisional API. I'd just like to get some initial feedback on this idea before I file a bug on the Architecture Council component (well in fact anybody can file such a bug). Note the public package in the provisional API. It is contradictory to the [2] I assume that in the cited table, the "public" means that the packages are exported and publicly visible (which is recommended for EVERY package including those that have an "internal" segment in their package name. In this light, this isn't a contradiction. new API is released as provisional in release X and then hardened into platform APIs in release X+1. Well that also seems too blindly following a principle. The API is ready when it is ready and shouldn't be promoted just because it's old. A better description should be "We have a constant project plan item to work on hardening API that has been introduced as provisional in the previous release". which says that it's an item to work on, regardless of to what extent the goal is reached. Provisional API should be in public packages and has clear javadoc that would: But that's exactly what's happening. The packages are public today. They just have some "internal" segment in their name. Perhaps what you're missing is some clear indication in the package name that separates provisional API from all the wade of other internal stuff. That's something worth discussing and specifying. As far as I know, some projects have adopted a naming scheme like org.eclipse.platform.internal.core.provisional.api which is lengthy but does provide the requested separation. I'm against placing provisional API into non-internal packages since it would way too easily be taken for hardened. Although some API Tooling tags could perhaps help here. Coming up with a generally recommended naming scheme for provisional API might be worth another bug on the Architecture Council component for discussion. Thanks for bringing up the issue and being persistent. I think that we're touching on some important issues here, and I'm looking forward to the followup discussions. Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Krzysztof Daniel Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 11:29 AM To: E4 developer list Subject: RE: [eclipse-incubator-e4-dev] Re: Avoiding Bloat Hi Martin, The sources you have mentioned also say: [2] After the API freeze, there is really no such thing as "provisional API". Either it is complete and committed platform API, or it is internal code. Moreover it reads: [2] Technically, a provisional API can change arbitrarily or be removed at any time without notice. I believe that this document indicates that there is strong "API"-" Internal" division after the release (and maybe this is only my interpretation). In the [4] I have found interesting table: Specification Test Suite Implementation Clients Support Promise Package Platform API yes yes yes yes yes public Provisional yes yes yes yes not quite public The table is bigger of course, but only those two cases are important for us. Note the public package in the provisional API. It is contradictory to the [2] unless provisional API becomes API after every release. I am happy to see that someone is already using provisional API independent from release cycle, even happier that The TPTP project uses Provisional APIs for all new API introductions: the new API is released as provisional in release X and then hardened into platform APIs in release X+1. (4) Maybe it would be good to ask TPTP team how this approach works in real environment? What I'd expect from Eclipse is to adopt slightly modified TPTP strategy - harden provisional API when it has not changed for one development cycle. Provisional API should be in public packages and has clear javadoc that would: * warn the user that the API *may* change. * encourage the user to register to particular mailing list/watch some wiki pages On the other hand we could think about support from API tools, that would throw warnings/errors when the client access provisional API, and about completely new tool that would ask the user to register on mailing list, display messages from developer etc. [4] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Eclipse_Quality Example: Commiter A creates: package org.eclipse.component; /** * This is provisional API. It is believed to be stable, but still may change. For your own good subscribe to the list component-dev-provisional to be notified about changes. * @provisional * @since 3.5 */ public interface IInterface{ public void method1(); public void method2(); } Now some client implements that interface. It is warned (by API tools) and prompted to register to the newsgroup. During the development cycle we may ask clients if they got what they expected and if we can do anything better. Eclipse 3.5 is released. A lot of people uses that interface, and it appears that third method is necessary. So the commiter adds method3(), posts to concrete mailing list and all customers are informed about compatibility breaking change. Also steps necessary to adapt new method are described (and in the future maybe some more advanced refactoring scripts). Eclipse 3.6 is released with that change, than 3.7 without change, so the @provisional tag should be deleted and... no refactoring at that point :-). I hope that my vision is easier to understand now :-). [1] EclipseCon 2008 Device Debugging (DD) Update http://www.eclipsecon.org/2008/index.php?page=sub/&id=45 http://www.eclipsecon.org/2008/sub/attachments/Device_Debugging_Project_Update.pdf [2] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Provisional_API_Guidelines [3] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Export-Package -- Christopher Daniel Technical Support Engineer Eclipse Support Center IBM Software Group _______________________________________________ eclipse-incubator-e4-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-incubator-e4-dev _______________________________________________ eclipse-incubator-e4-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-incubator-e4-dev _______________________________________________ eclipse-incubator-e4-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-incubator-e4-dev
_______________________________________________ eclipse-incubator-e4-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-incubator-e4-dev
