Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | [Help] Remove access restrictions on lucene packages | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] Platform | Reporter: | Janek Lasocki-Biczysko <janek.lb> |
| Component: | User Assistance | Assignee: | platform-ua-inbox <platform-ua-inbox> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | konradk |
| Version: | 3.2 | ||
| Target Milestone: | 3.2 RC1 | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Windows XP | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
|
Description
Janek Lasocki-Biczysko
All Lucene packages except 'demo.html' are visible. The demo package is marked as internal with help.base plug-in being the only 'friend'. There must be a reason for this (perhaps this package is not API and help.base is using it as-is. I would rather add pde as another friend than make it API. This way we could treat possible problems in the demo package easier. what's the status on this request for 3.2? PDE/UI is a pretty big API offender according to the build logs, and we would like to restore our good name. From what I read, there are a set of demos provided by lucene to demonstrate some sample usage. Help uses the html demo because it provides html indexing, but I'm not sure if exposing this package is the right way to go, because it seems to imply API, which it is not. For all we know, the demo may be completely reworked in the next lucene version and anyone using it would be broken. I think this is why it was kept internal.. can you confirm Konrad? The reason why we are using this package in the first place is because PDE is graciously providing tooling for UA. What do we get in return? Access violations. I am going on a hunger strike until this issue is resolved. This is hard to solve. 1) We own both PDE and the internal package we are talking about, therefore we can safely call the method knowing that we will not shoot ourselves in the foot. 2) We don't want to open up that package to the world because we don't want everybody and his dog start making dependencies on our own copy of the demo code that we tweaked. 3) We don't want to see the warning but we don't want to promote PDE to help's friend because it crosses feature boundaries. This is hard to solve. Either we add the friend statement or live with the warning knowing that it is a false alarm. Removing the conversion tool is not an option. Pick your poison. I pick poison 3 - add PDE/UI as a friend. although I am not sure poison 2 is realistically much of an issue. I'm not sure if this is true or not, but I though I heard that Lucene updated its code to fix the defects that we had addressed ourselves. If this is the case we could update our lucence code with the official version and poision #2 wouldn't be a poision anymore. Any objections from anyone about making PDE a friend? Going once, going twice.. I suggest that we add PDE as a temporary friend but mark somewhere that we test if we can move to the official 'demo' package and open it up to the world. I am hesitant to upgrade Lucene at this point. org.eclipse.pde.ui is now a friend for package org.apache.lucene.demo.html. Added a note to bug 130345 to remove friend and expose the official demo package after we upgrade to the latest lucene, assuming the fixes we added were added to lucene. Forgot to mark as fixed. (In reply to comment #4) > I am going on a hunger strike until this issue is resolved. > I'm relieved to see this was resolved just in time for lunch. :-) |