Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 365870 - Re-introduce the OnTheFlyCompiler
Summary: Re-introduce the OnTheFlyCompiler
Status: REOPENED
Alias: None
Product: TMF
Classification: Modeling
Component: Xtext (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows 7
: P3 enhancement (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Project Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-12-07 06:53 EST by Kai Kreuzer CLA
Modified: 2011-12-07 07:42 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Kai Kreuzer CLA 2011-12-07 06:53:01 EST
Build Identifier: Xtext 2.2

In Xtext/Xbase 2.2 the OnTheFlyCompiler has been removed as it introduced an undesired dependency to JDT in the xbase bundle.

As this feature is very useful to create bytecode on the fly, it would be nice if this feature could be re-introduced in an optional bundle (not in xbase.ui as the feature is UI independent and rather used in optimized headless runtimes).


Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Sven Efftinge CLA 2011-12-07 07:11:29 EST
It has been moved to org.eclipse.xtext.xbase.junit
Comment 2 Sven Efftinge CLA 2011-12-07 07:12:32 EST
Please reopen is I miss something.
Comment 3 Kai Kreuzer CLA 2011-12-07 07:20:00 EST
Well, this place implies that it is not considered a feature anymore, but merely a helper class for testing, right?

Adding the xbase.junit bundle to your runtime and thus having junit in there as well does not sound like a valid solution to me.
Comment 4 Sven Efftinge CLA 2011-12-07 07:34:25 EST
I see it's not ideal, but that's the tradeoff. 
OnTheFlyCompiler is really just a thin (and a bit hacky) wrapper around JDT's Main.
We are not going to put it somewhere else and make it a first class feature. 
You can use it, but it's internal API and we might change it or even move it again eventually.

We can leave the feature request open, since it's a valid feature request. But for now chances aren't good that we do something about it.
Comment 5 Kai Kreuzer CLA 2011-12-07 07:42:44 EST
Thanks Sven. I perfectly understand your point of view and that you do not want to put any effort on this to make it a supported and official feature.

So I will live with that status, but leave the request open just in case somebody wants to jump on it in future.