Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 118737

Summary:	[api] StructuredTextViewerConfiguration returns non-API type
Product:	[WebTools] WTP Source Editing	Reporter:	Jeffrey Liu <jeffliu>
Component:	wst.sse	Assignee:	wst.sse-triaged <wst.sse-triaged>
Status:	RESOLVED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Nitin Dahyabhai <thatnitind>
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P3	CC:	itewksbu, nsand.dev
Version:	1.0
Target Milestone:	Future
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Windows XP
Whiteboard:

Description Jeffrey Liu

2005-11-30 19:05:50 EST

org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.StructuredTextViewerConfiguration's method "getLineStyleProviders" returns org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.internal.provisional.style.LineStyleProvider[], which is not an API type.


org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.StructuredTextEditor's method "getModel" returns org.eclipse.wst.sse.core.internal.provisional.IStructuredModel, which is not an API type.


org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.StructuredTextEditor's method "getTextViewer" returns org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.internal.StructuredTextViewer, which is not an API type.

Comment 1 Amy Wu

2005-12-06 16:19:58 EST

getLineStyleProvider & getTextViewer now have "Not API." in JavaDoc. (may be made API in future)

getModel is already deprecated.

Comment 2 Amy Wu

2008-10-27 04:33:34 EDT

reassigning to inbox

Comment 3 Ian Tewksbury

2010-02-16 13:39:29 EST

This falls into a larger general problem of having provisional packages in the first place.  Maybe there should be one bug opened for getting rid of all provisional packages.  Do it like pulling of a band-aid, do it all at once to get the pain of breaking people all at once but to be finally rid of these provisional packages.  For now I guess this should be left open.

Nitin, what do you think of the idea of having one bug to track all of these provisional packages and getting rid of them?  Then this could just be dupped with that, along with some others I know I have run across.

Comment 4 Nitin Dahyabhai

2010-02-23 11:38:10 EST

(In reply to comment #3)
> Nitin, what do you think of the idea of having one bug to track all of these
> provisional packages and getting rid of them?  Then this could just be dupped
> with that, along with some others I know I have run across.

Ambivalent, as changing them would certainly break binary compatibility all over the place.

Comment 5 Ian Tewksbury

2010-02-23 12:13:11 EST

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Nitin, what do you think of the idea of having one bug to track all of these
> > provisional packages and getting rid of them?  Then this could just be dupped
> > with that, along with some others I know I have run across.
> 
> Ambivalent, as changing them would certainly break binary compatibility all
> over the place.

Then this should probably just be closed as won't fix? And moving forward just don't use provisional packages any longer?

Comment 6 Nitin Dahyabhai

2010-02-23 12:19:42 EST

(In reply to comment #5)
> And moving forward just don't use provisional packages any longer?

Well we're certainly never doing that again.

Comment 7 Nick Sandonato

2010-10-05 16:28:02 EDT

*** Bug 118734 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 8 Nick Sandonato

2012-10-17 16:13:10 EDT

No plans to fix because of significant binary compatibility issues.