Should the fix to BZ 794489 be considered a change to plugin API?

Lukas Krejci lkrejci at redhat.com
Tue Feb 21 16:15:49 UTC 2012


Hi all,

in fix for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794489 I needed to change the ResourceContext class, which is part of our plugin API. The API changes were following:

1) add (yet another) parameter to the constructor of the class
2) add a protected method (this is not necessarily required but good from the code reuse POV).

(the diff is here: http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=rhq/rhq.git;a=blobdiff;f=modules/core/plugin-api/src/main/java/org/rhq/core/pluginapi/inventory/ResourceContext.java;h=a5d3d75f1977281e25fef6d8f98f6337d01eebf2;hp=853345d0db30dbd14c21a5a42a39b488fe0c3cd5;hb=21ce96ac0da01f32f3c57acec608523176db2ceb;hpb=e2bbfdf06987dd1de0dcedac98f69116f21a24ae)

I don't think this should be considered a change in our public plugin API, because ResourceContext is not meant to be constructed by plugin code (an instance of ResourceContext is merely provided to a resource component during the ResourceComponent.start() method). The protected method is a) not publicly accessible and b) doesn't clash with any pre-existing method on that class.

Even though I'm reasonably confident about that opinion, I'd like to get an agreement on it from other team members.

Thanks,

Lukas


More information about the rhq-devel mailing list