Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 238162 - [RCP] Remove dependency on org.eclipse.update.core
Summary: [RCP] Remove dependency on org.eclipse.update.core
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: UI (show other bugs)
Version: 3.4   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.5 M2   Edit
Assignee: John Arthorne CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 196318
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2008-06-23 14:30 EDT by John Arthorne CLA
Modified: 2008-08-14 16:49 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description John Arthorne CLA 2008-06-23 14:30:51 EDT 
Build: 3.4 final

I noticed while browsing code that IDEWorkbenchAdvisor has a method "checkUpdates" which makes a call to update manager API (SiteManager.handleNewChanges()).  Looking through the history, I see this SiteManager.handleNewChanges() method has had an empty body since the 3.0 release, so it's a no-op to call it.  This reference should be removed because it allows org.eclipse.ui.ide.application to remove its dependency on org.eclipse.update.*.  We will be gradually removing dependencies on classic update and this one is an easy place to start.
Comment 1 John Arthorne CLA 2008-06-23 14:32:08 EDT 
By the way, I am happy to make this change, just not sure who owns that code and didn't want to step on anyone's toes.
Comment 2 Eric Moffatt CLA 2008-06-23 15:22:01 EDT 
Do we make any internal calls to this method? I'm wondering if we need it as a legacy placeholder for subclasses for which it may -not- be a no-op...
Comment 3 Boris Bokowski CLA 2008-06-24 05:39:18 EDT 
(In reply to comment #1)
> By the way, I am happy to make this change, just not sure who owns that code
> and didn't want to step on anyone's toes.

Sure, go ahead. Removing dependencies sounds good.
Comment 4 John Arthorne CLA 2008-06-24 16:37:30 EDT 
In answer to comment #2, the update API in question is a static method so there is no possibility of a subclass having a non-no-op body.
Comment 5 John Arthorne CLA 2008-08-14 16:49:09 EDT 
Done.