Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merge org.eclipse.jdt.apt.core into org.eclipse.jdt.core #2548

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mickaelistria
Copy link
Contributor

@mickaelistria mickaelistria commented Jun 10, 2024

Issue #2581

Implementation notes:

  • org.eclipse.jdt.apt.core "proxies" to org.eclipse.jdt.core
  • Both new and legacy extension points ids are processed, this brings backward compatibility
  • Platform mandates that we change the marker ids
  • The marker type constants had to move so that client code reacts to their value changing

What it does

How to test

Author checklist

Implementation notes:
* org.eclipse.jdt.apt.core "proxies" to org.eclipse.jdt.core
* Both new and legacy extension points ids are processed, this brings
backward compatibility
* Platform mandates that we change the marker ids
* The marker type constants had to move so that client code reacts to
their value changing
@jukzi
Copy link
Contributor

jukzi commented Jun 10, 2024

  • this brings backward compatibility

I don't think JDT needs backward compatibility. All jdt plugins are released simultaneously and won't work together with versions of another release.

@mickaelistria
Copy link
Contributor Author

What I had in mind was more backward compatibility for 3rd party consumer of the extension point and APIs. Those should still work without issue with previous or newer version, pre or post refactoring.

@mickaelistria
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm putting it on hold for the moment; I still think it's a good change and we may need it later, so I'm not closing. But I'm fine with even delaying it after next release.

@mickaelistria
Copy link
Contributor Author

Let's convert it to draft so it gets clearer that we don't need review at the moment

@mickaelistria mickaelistria marked this pull request as draft June 26, 2024 13:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants