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

Bug 339746

Summary:

[API] Regenerate EMF Metadata Model with Java 5 Compliance

Product:

[WebTools] Java Server Faces

Reporter:

Gerry Kessler <gerry.kessler>

Component:

JSF Tools

Assignee:

Gerry Kessler <gerry.kessler>

Status:

RESOLVED FIXED

QA Contact:

Severity:

normal

Priority:

CC:

david_williams, raghunathan.srinivasan

Version:

3.3

Flags:

david_williams: pmc_approved+
raghunathan.srinivasan: pmc_approved? (naci.dai)
raghunathan.srinivasan: pmc_approved? (deboer)
raghunathan.srinivasan: pmc_approved? (neil.hauge)
raghunathan.srinivasan: pmc_approved? (kaloyan)
raghunathan.srinivasan: pmc_approved? (cbridgha)
raghunathan.srinivasan: review+

Target Milestone:

3.3 M7

Hardware:

OS:

Windows XP

Whiteboard:

PMC_approved

Attachments:

Description	Flags
Patch	none

Description Gerry Kessler

2011-03-11 13:38:25 EST

We wish to have generics support in the EMF metadata model.   The EMF model was introduced when JDK 1.4 was still the minimum standard at WTP.  It is unlikely that there are many, if any, developers besides the JSF Tools team that make use of code that would be affected.

Comment 1 Gerry Kessler

2011-03-11 15:10:35 EST

Created attachment 191028 [details]
Patch

Comment 2 Raghunathan Srinivasan

2011-03-11 16:19:09 EST

Post-m6 exception

Comment 3 David Williams

2011-03-16 11:44:29 EDT

I don't see any reason to object to this, but is kind of hard to understand or interpret. For one, there are some things in the patch that has nothing to do with generics, and some changes that have nothing to do with Java 5, so its hard to tell what's significant and what's not. For another, its unclear what the expected impact is, exactly ... is it expected to be binary compatible? But not source compatible? The former would take a major increment in manifest.mf and feature versions, the later would require minor field increment only. 

But, again, to emphasize my approval, if this is important to you, and you feels it is essential for this release, the future of JSF code base, etc., then I'd suggest you go for it and just be open to helping adopters migrate, if needed. 

Thanks for your care.

Comment 4 Gerry Kessler

2011-03-16 19:21:08 EDT

David, 

Thanks for taking the time to review the patch.   I may have erred on the side of being overly cautious by condidering this an API change requiring a review.  The public interfaces did change in that the generics were added to some of the signatures.   But since the generics don't actually change the binary or source compatibility, it probably was not necessary to request PMC approval for this change, and I certainly don't think that any adopters will have problems uptaking this change.

As to the other small changes you noticed in the patch, these were non-API related dealing with making something transient and improving how my xml model de-serializes.   I probably should have unwound it from the patch and checked it in separately.   Sorry for that confusion.

I appreciated your comment on the manifest versions; I had forgotten how an incompatible API change would require the major version change.   It is not necessary here though and will remember for the future.

The patch has been checked into HEAD.