Re: Re: CVS update: MODIFIED: . ...

Hi, Petre,

Petr Jiricka napsal(a):
[snip]
> 
> While I agree that declaring an implementation dependency is a better 
> solution than declaring all classes public, I object to the general 
> non-cooperative tone of this message. If you now agree with Svata, why 
> didn't you object to IN 15163? Joe used approved internal Sun process to 
> communicate the requested change (and we are paid by Sun to use these 
> communication channels, right?), so you could have objected then.
> 
Oh; so then cooperativeness is limited to SUN employees only, since we 
(non-SUN persons) cannot listen to the internal channels, obviously, but 
we ARE affected by such secretly-approved changes since we share the 
codebase.
I (or other non-SUN people) obviously could not read IN 15163, so it 
does not really matter for me whether Joe used SUN's internal policies 
or not and whether Vita listens to INF or not, sorry.

I wouldn't mind if such change occured in a SUN-private branch, but 
prj40_prototype is the only branch open for new Projects development and 
shared by both SUN and the community.

> Also, I disagree that using implementation dependency qualifies as 
> temporary solution. This document:
> 
> http://openide.netbeans.org/unbranded-source/browse/~checkout~/openide/api/doc/org/openide/doc-files/classpath.html?rev=1.13.6.1&content-type=text/html 
> 
> states clearly that implementation dependency is the correct way to 
> express a "Friend API" dependency. An API that has been used by our 
> colleagues at Sun for several IDE releases, definitely qualifies as 
> "friend" at least, doesn't it?
> 
IMHO it does; although the necessity to update the dependant's manifest 
each time the provider's impl version changes makes it somewhat troublesome.

-Svata