Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [wtp-dev] proposed package naming convention to distinguish 'work in progress' API


Can we use 'internal.provisional' to indicate work in progress APIs? On one hand, we are saying, use these APIs at your own risk (internal package). On the other hand, developers that follow this mailing list will know that APIs inside the "internal.provisional" package have a better chance of becoming a real API.

Thanks,

Jeffrey Liu
IBM Rational Software - Performance Analyst
IBM Toronto Lab.
8200 Warden Ave. Markham, Ontario, L6G 1C7
Internal mail: D3/R8V/8200/MKM (D3-268)
T/L: 969 3531
Tel: (905) 413 3531
Fax: (905) 413 4920
jeffliu@xxxxxxxxxx



Jim des Rivieres/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: wtp-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

03/08/2005 02:08 PM

Please respond to
wtp-dev

To
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
Re: [wtp-dev] proposed package naming convention to distinguish 'work in progress' API





+1 David's comments.  If it wasn't designed as a platform-quality API,
chances are that it will morph somewhat when the API is actually designed.

We use 'internal' in the package name to indicate that the package is not
API and that reasonable clients should stay well clear of it. We should
stick to this simple rule.

To help the dev teams keep track of what is truly internal from what could
be candidate for an API, I suggest putting that information into the
package and class/interface Javadoc.

----jim




David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/08/2005 01:23 PM
Please respond to
wtp-dev


To
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc

Subject
Re: [wtp-dev] proposed package naming convention to distinguish 'work in
progress' API







I've had lots of discussions with development teams, and almost all of
them like the idea of kind of "degree of internal" naming. I think,
however, its main value is to the development teams and those working
*real* close to the development teams.

But ... are we talking about released code? Or just temporary,
within-milestone names? If the latter, then nevermind this post. If the
former, I'd be hesitant to have a project standard, for the simple reason
that as a project (and PMC) our promise to clients is only for the APIs
(not "almost APIs" or "API in the future").

I say this partially from experience with early releases of Eclipse, and
some statements from some of those developers of "oh, yes, we intended
that internal package to be API in the future", but by the next release,
the way of providing the function as a supported API was completely
changed (rightly so) , was not a mere rename (rightly so) and caused
upstream clients some unexpected re-work (rightly so). So, in other words,
no matter how good our intent of "we want to make this API in the future"
there's really no good way to predict what it would be like in a future
release, or how much re-work from clients it would entail, once it was
truly designed and made platform quality ... so, we have to be very
careful to give the right message to clients that a "provisional" API is
in no way a partial API or promise for future API.

Having made all these cautionary remarks about correctly setting client
expectations, I'll emphasize I think it's great that teams using something
in addition to "internal" to make their package names more meaningful to
themselves and their clients.

David





Arthur Ryman <ryman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/08/2005 12:16 PM

Please respond to
wtp-dev


To
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Jim des Rivieres <Jim_des_Rivieres@xxxxxxxxxx>
cc
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, wtp-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject
Re: [wtp-dev] proposed package naming convention to distinguish 'work in
progress' API









Craig,

+1

I think it is very useful to drawn the distinction between code that is
truly internal and code that is on course to become API. Using
"provisional" instead of "internal" works for me.

Another approach might be to use something like "candidateapi" for
candidate APIs, and then change that to "api" when the API is ready.

Jeem - any thoughts?

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/

Craig Salter/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: wtp-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/08/2005 01:37 AM

Please respond to
wtp-dev



To
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc

Subject
[wtp-dev] proposed package naming convention to distinguish 'work in
progress' API











Hi,

Currently we use 'internal' package names to indicate that code is not
supported API.   I know many of us have code that is 'work in progress'
API and though its too soon to expose this as 'fully supported API' its
seems useful to be able to distinguish these preliminary API's from the
rest of our our 'internal' code.  I'd like to propose that we use
'provisional' in our package names to indicate this sort of work in
progress API.  I think this will help our customers get a better feel for
what parts of our code we eventually intend to promote as API and what
parts we consider to be truly internal.

Any opinions?

thanks

Craig


Craig Salter
Rational Studio XML Web Services
Internal Mail: D3/RY6/8200 /MKM
Phone: (905) 413-3918  TL: 969-3918 FAX: (905) 413-4920
Internet: csalter@xxxxxxxxxx     Notes: Craig Salter/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA


_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev


Back to the top