[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[cdt-dev] Scanner Discovery API and versioning of cdt.core
- From: Andrew Gvozdev <angvoz.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:21:08 -0500
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=dlOzlMsKT+nPmH2C5xFmI+GktbAg4P1waYt3AQXlfO0=; b=ZVjMsLq9RUVuIDiNukcH4C+Xe46IGtKl04sUCMwbrzJW/vtjn8zbyn7lU163sK1jWG bi0s4DunjUxoKQJ1JrYNOmWhGousRsBs2LNoiXnSUvAP92oXxQbJvpNgSN75SGy+lYY0 HeuYm/sebXZyX8ES2DarZfqtApaCo1r5DXtV0=
There are 2 interfaces that were changed in cdt.core and that cause breaking API changes as reported by API tooling. Both interfaces are presumable of internal kind but not marked currently as such:
I marked both as @noextend/@noimplement which is breaking by itself.
ICDescriptionDelta is to create a delta for event notification which is done internally in the model. I do not believe users should be allowed to implement it.
I am less convinced about ICSettingEntry but we had some discussion about it earlier and James was of the opinion that it should be marked as internal. I would concur unless somebody provide a good reason for extending.
So, on sd90 branch I marked them as @noextend/@noimplement and added to API filters which allowes not to increase the major version of cdt.core. Would it be appropriate to do in this case?
This also brings up a question what is the next version of CDT itself, is it CDT 9.0 or CDT 8.1 ?