[
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
|
Without specs, test suites, and all the other things that come with
sustainable APIs, they can't really be considered APIs, not even
provisional or interim ones. Using packages names with "internal.api" or
"internal.provisional" sends a mixed message.
I'm not sure what problem would be addressed by embedding something
additional in the package name.
---jim
Craig Salter/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: wtp-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/08/2005 03:10 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
Or perhaps "internal.api.XXX". Might be more obvious.
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
Jeffrey Liu/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: wtp-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/08/2005 03:05 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
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