Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | [Gogo] The class loading commands should be provided to gogo using the speced service properties | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [RT] Virgo | Reporter: | Glyn Normington <glyn.normington> |
| Component: | runtime | Assignee: | Glyn Normington <glyn.normington> |
| Status: | CLOSED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | enhancement | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | b.kapukaranov, eclipse, hsiliev, l.kirchev |
| Version: | unspecified | Flags: | glyn.normington:
documentation+
hsiliev: review+ |
| Target Milestone: | 3.5.0.RELEASE | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Mac OS X - Carbon (unsup.) | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Bug Depends on: | 350853 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Glyn Normington
Given these commands are specific to Virgo, another alternative is to reuse the vsh scope:
> vsh:clhas ...
> vsh:clexport ...
> vsh:clLoad ...
I prefer this. Any objections?
I vote for keeping the old names - this will save some work on our side (documentation, faq), the users won't need to learn the new names and last but not least we will avoid clashes with existing commands (as you already mentioned). If we put the cl* commands in a new bundle one can easily embed them in arbitrary Equinox based project. Yes, I agree we should keep the old names. Shall we use the vsh scope as per comment 1? (In reply to comment #3) > Yes, I agree we should keep the old names. Shall we use the vsh scope as per > comment 1? As there should be a scope, I think vsh is an appropriate choice. I would still prefer to separate class loading commands from vsh and this will allow other projects to use the bundle without additional dependencies. This should be relatively easy since cl* use just Equinox APIs. Do you think we should go this way? (In reply to comment #5) > I would still prefer to separate class loading commands from vsh and this will > allow other projects to use the bundle without additional dependencies. This > should be relatively easy since cl* use just Equinox APIs. > > Do you think we should go this way? The vsh scope I am proposing is simply specified as a service property, so it can easily be changed if the bundle is reused in other contexts. However, the bundle cannot currently be reused "as is" because it depends on the Virgo shell bundle which then depends on other parts of Virgo, etc. We *could* factor out the class loading commands into their own bundle so that the bundle could be reused "as is" in other environments, but in that case it would be better to move the bundle into Equinox and then reuse it in Virgo. For now, I suggest we go with the vsh scope for clarity (i.e. it's then clear the commands come from Virgo) and change to another scope name if/when the class loading commands are moved to Equinox. How does that sound? You are right - the correct place for cl* commands would be Equinox itself if we want reuse. The vsh scope sound reasonable in this light :) Kernel commits: 8dbc81dbb63082461be3d25f4a7cf52f18766157, 5ba0bb957a24446935a617b21cbb4768351ee691, and 62458f04179b7b8d606075374449b82a87b0c948. Documentation commit: 96c2532de47aa14e3eeb108f6e601a475719b3b2. Closing following Hristo's review, for which I am grateful. |