Why would this deprecation message ever have to be part of the log that is sent to support? Its not doing them, or the user, any good.
Tim has given one example, and, I, as another battled-scared committer of this mistake, have had "real life" experience ... I did something similar once, and probably got 5 or 10 "official" support phone calls about "what does this warning mean", my customer is wondering if its related to the bug they are having (and while obvious to developers it wasn't related ... it is not so obvious to support people or customers) ... and I must have gotten 20 similar calls from "add on" providers -- so, I think the cost of confusion outweighs the benefits.
So, I don't see it as "theoretical" ... There's better mechanisms for both deprecations warnings and for plugin developer aides. Let's use them.
And .. careful .. if you have strong views on logging, I am looking for someone to own the logging strategy for WTP :)
| "Konstantin Komissarchik"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/17/2006 06:56 PM
|
|
I disagree. PDE error log is not an end-user tool. It’s meant to help plugin authors identify problems that occur at runtime. As in support directing the customer to send the error log to them for trouble shooting. Your average user should not have any need to look at the log (it’s hidden by default). If they do, that just means that we are not doing our jobs.
Regarding the particular question of using the log to report deprecation warnings, I believe that this is not inconsistent with what the PDE error log is supposed to be used for and is the best tool we have for making sure that usage of deprecated functionality does not go unnoticed by the plugin owner. Everyone is happier when there are fewer surprises as the deprecated functionality is removed in the next release. I also don’t agree that this hides real errors as there is very good visual separation between warnings and errors and deprecation reporting only needs to produce one message per extension point / plugin combination (not a lot).
- Konstantin
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 3:38 PM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Enablement _expression_ support in validator ext point
I agree with Tim. We should only log things we think users/consumers should see ... otherwise, please "hide" unless turned on with some explicit -debug .facet-options flag.
(and, encourage *developers* to clean up their warnings, and/or turn on deprecated extension points to the 'error' level -- PDE i s your friend :)
| Timothy Deboer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/17/2006 04:00 PM
|
|
Hi,
While I agree that a little incentive helps to move people off deprecated API, deprecated Java code doesn't produce output at runtime and I'm not sure that extension points should. Throwing everything out to the .log hides real errors and can produce a lot of extraneous output. When the similar change was made in facets I received several email from panicked users who thought WTP was failing or blamed other problems on the errors in the log.
Thanks,
Tim deBoer
WebSphere Tools - IBM Canada Ltd.
(905) 413-3503 (tieline 969)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| "Konstantin Komissarchik"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 17/04/2006 02:14 PM
|
|
Vijay,
You may want to consider logging deprecation warnings into PDE Error Log when the deprecated extension syntax is detected. The deprecation warning should include the id of the plugin that the deprecated syntax is used in. This way the plugin owner is more likely to become aware that they are using deprecated syntax and will transition to the new syntax more quickly.
I have done this for all the syntax that I have deprecated in the faceted project framework.
- Konstantin
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vijay Bhadriraju
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 11:07 AM
To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
Cc: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] Enablement _expression_ support in validator ext point
Yes, enablement is the recommended way to filter validators based on facets, the facet filters has been deprecated but will continue to work.
Regards, Vijay
_____________________________
Vijay Bhadriraju
Rational Tools, J2EE Tooling
Ph: (919) 486-1898, T/L: 526-1898
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____________________________
| Lawrence Mandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/17/2006 12:10 PM
|
|
Hi Vijay,
Is the enablement method now the recommended way to restrict based on facets?
Has the facet filters support been deprecated?
Thanks,
Lawrence Mandel
Software Developer
IBM Rational Software
Phone: 905 - 413 - 3814 Fax: 905 - 413 - 4920
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Vijay Bhadriraju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/16/2006 10:52 PM
|
|
The support for enablement _expression_ as shown below has been added to
the validator extension point. The facet filters support added in the validator
ext point in addition to natures did not scale very well and additional
requirements from some extended teams drove the need for the enablement
support which scales very well. This _expression_ support covers all
the combinations that the FacetedProjectPropertyTester
provides as this is the tester class that is used under the covers for
property and value strings.
The ejb validator is changed to use this support instead of facet filters
<extension
id="EJBValidator"
name="%EJB_VALIDATOR"
point="org.eclipse.wst.validation.validator">
<validator>
<enablement>
<and>
<test
property="org.eclipse.wst.common.project.facet.core.projectFacet"
value="jst.java"/>
<test
property="org.eclipse.wst.common.project.facet.core.projectFacet"
value="jst.ejb"/>
</and>
</enablement>
<filter
objectClass="org.eclipse.core.resources.IFile"
nameFilter="ejb-jar.xml">
</filter>
<filter
objectClass="org.eclipse.core.resources.IFile"
nameFilter="*.class">
</filter>
<filter
objectClass="org.eclipse.core.resources.IFile"
nameFilter="*.java">
</filter>
<helper
class="org.eclipse.jst.j2ee.internal.ejb.workbench.validation.EJBHelper">
</helper>
<dependentValidator
depValValue="true">
</dependentValidator>
<markerId
markerIdValue="EJBValidatorMarker">
</markerId>
<run
class="org.eclipse.jst.j2ee.internal.ejb.workbench.validation.UIEjbValidator">
</run>
</validator>
</extension>
The facet filters support still exists and works in the validator ext point
even though it is redundant with this enablement support. The reason it
is still supported is for the fact that we are not supposed to break any
internal api also at this point for 1.5. Validators using facet filters
will continue to work as is and the any validators that need the enablement
_expression_ support can migrate.
Regards, Vijay
_____________________________
Vijay Bhadriraju
Rational Tools, J2EE Tooling
Ph: (919) 486-1898, T/L: 526-1898
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____________________________
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
_______________________________________________ wtp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
