Community
Participate
Working Groups
Build Identifier: 3.6 - I20100507 We are trying to have API compatibility between our Eclipse 3.4 code and Eclipse 3.6 code In Eclipse 3.6 there is a new plugin org.eclipse.ant.launching. The SQLJ plugin manifest needs to be updated to include a dependency on this new plugin based on the delegation implemented in org.eclipse.ant.internal.ui.launchConfigurations.AntLaunchDelegate. This was not the case in Eclipse 3.4. Unfortunately, we cannot have this new dependency in Eclipse 3.4 Reproducible: Always
Is this a source or a binary (runtime) compatibility issue? I've done a few experiments and found that, for example, if one were subclassing the AntLaunchDelegate that things still work in a 3.6 runtime, but there are source compatibility issues. The compilation problems go away if ant.ui re-exports the new launching bundle.
(In reply to comment #1) > Is this a source or a binary (runtime) compatibility issue? I've done a few > experiments and found that, for example, if one were subclassing the > AntLaunchDelegate that things still work in a 3.6 runtime, but there are source > compatibility issues. The compilation problems go away if ant.ui re-exports the > new launching bundle. Thanks Darin. This would be great and would allow to compile and run. Could this be delivered to 361? Thanks, ~Loic
Loic, could you confirm if this is a source compatibility issue? i.e. is the problem that you can't compile 3.4 based code on the 3.6 code base, or that you cannot run 3.4 binaries on the 3.6 release? Generally, we guarentee binary compatibility (i.e. 3.4 binaries continue to run on 3.6), but we don't guarentee source compatibility.
(In reply to comment #3) > Loic, could you confirm if this is a source compatibility issue? i.e. is the > problem that you can't compile 3.4 based code on the 3.6 code base, or that you > cannot run 3.4 binaries on the 3.6 release? Generally, we guarentee binary > compatibility (i.e. 3.4 binaries continue to run on 3.6), but we don't > guarentee source compatibility. Hi Darin, I thank you for your question. We are bringing an environment dedicated to issues like this so that it will be easier to answer questions. Will get back to you shortly. Thanks, ~Loic
(In reply to comment #3) > Loic, could you confirm if this is a source compatibility issue? i.e. is the > problem that you can't compile 3.4 based code on the 3.6 code base, or that you > cannot run 3.4 binaries on the 3.6 release? Generally, we guarentee binary > compatibility (i.e. 3.4 binaries continue to run on 3.6), but we don't > guarentee source compatibility. Hi Darin, We confirm this is a source compatibility issue. If you were to reexport the plugin, our compilation issue would go away (we also validated this). Is this something that could be delivered in 3.6.1? Thank you, ~Loic
Would it be possible to add an optional dependency on the new bundle for the code that compiles against 3.6? That way the code will compile against 3.6, and continue to run against 3.4: Require-Bundle: org.eclipse.ant.launching;bundle-version="[1.0.0,2.0.0)";resolution:=optional
(In reply to comment #6) > Would it be possible to add an optional dependency on the new bundle for the > code that compiles against 3.6? That way the code will compile against 3.6, and > continue to run against 3.4: > > Require-Bundle: > org.eclipse.ant.launching;bundle-version="[1.0.0,2.0.0)";resolution:=optional Hello Darin, Thanks for helping us!! Apologize for not responding sooner. We will try adding it and compile.Will update you with the status. Thanks, Rekha
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Would it be possible to add an optional dependency on the new bundle for the > > code that compiles against 3.6? That way the code will compile against 3.6, and > > continue to run against 3.4: > > > > Require-Bundle: > > org.eclipse.ant.launching;bundle-version="[1.0.0,2.0.0)";resolution:=optional > > Hello Darin, > Thanks for helping us!! > > Apologize for not responding sooner. > We will try adding it and compile.Will update you with the status. > > Thanks, > Rekha We added and compiled the suggestion. This helps out with compatibility issue. Thanks
Thanks for reporting back. Marking as wontfix, since no changes were required by the platform to make this work.
