Note that this has been codified in the
Eclipse Development Process: http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/eclipse-quality.php
From:
eclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Randy Hudson
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006
7:17 AM
To: General development mailing
list of the Eclipse project.
Subject: RE: [eclipse-dev] Best
practices for provisional APIs
There is one major difference. Provisional says
"please try out this API and help us define the use cases". Internal
says "we have no idea why you would need to use these classes". The
similarity is that if you use either, you can be broken in the next release.
I
would prefer just ".provisional" or ".experimental" prefix
in the package name. Clients are more likely to look at the API, which is the
whole point to releasing it in its "unpolished" state. Oh ....
and it's easier to type.
-Randy
|
"Ed Burnette"
<Ed.Burnette@xxxxxxx>
Sent
by: eclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
02/17/2006 09:55 AM
|
Please
respond to
"General development mailing list of the Eclipse project." <eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
|
To
|
"General development mailing list of the
Eclipse project." <eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [eclipse-dev] Best practices for
provisional APIs
|
|
I agree with Mike. "provisional api" or
"internal provisional", whatever you call it, is just a guess anyway
because you reserve the right to change it.
From:
eclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Wilson
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:01 AM
To: General development mailing list of the Eclipse project.
Subject: Re: [eclipse-dev] Best practices for provisional APIs
I find the notion of provisional api to be basically just an oximoron. We
should have only two categories: API, and things that are internal because they
haven't yet stabilized/been validated enough to be API.
McQ.
|
Pascal
Rapicault/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: eclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
02/17/06 08:44
|
Please
respond to
"General development mailing list of the Eclipse project."
|
|
|
To
|
eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
[eclipse-dev] Best practices for provisional
APIs
|
|
Hi,
Should we adopt a consistent way to indicate provisional APIs across the SDK?
More specifically I'm wondering what are the rules for
- the package name. should the API be in the package where it would belong if
it was real API, or should it be in an internal package?
- the javadoc markup. should the javadoc say: experimental, provisional,
something else?
Aside from those questions, I propose to add to the javadoc an explicit request
for feedback from the users and explaining where this feedback should be given
(a mailing-list, a bug report, ...)
PaScaL_______________________________________________
eclipse-dev mailing list
eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your
password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-dev
_______________________________________________
eclipse-dev mailing list
eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your
password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-dev
