cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Unico Hommes <un...@hippo.nl>
Subject Re: [Vote] Marking internal classes
Date Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:53:19 GMT
Guido Casper wrote:

> Unico Hommes wrote:
>
>> Guido Casper wrote:
>>
>>> Guido Casper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In all other situations, Carsten is right - this might cause 
>>>>> backward incompatibility. This is important for user-facing 
>>>>> classes. Should we start marking classes as internal, like 
>>>>> "<b>INTERNAL!!!</b>" in javadoc or some such?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What about introducing @cocoon.usage tags I proposed a while ago like:
>>>> @cocoon.usage published
>>>>
>>>> or:
>>>> @cocoon.usage flowscript
>>>>
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> This might someday also be used to generate separate Javadocs for 
>>>> different APIs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hm, noone (but me :-) seems to like the idea.
>>>
>>> So maybe it's a good idea to first have a quick vote about whether 
>>> to mark internal classes as such or to mark "published 
>>> classes/interfaces" as such (and then decide how to mark them).
>>>
>>
>> +1
>
>
> Sorry, I think I was not clear (my fault). I intended the vote to be 
> about marking (like within javadocs) either:
> -internal classes
> or (the opposite):
> -published classes
>
> The first is what Vadim suggested and most simple to do (there are 
> just a few internal classes).
>
> The latter opens the door to further classify classes/interfaces.
>

OK, I get it now. Let's start with marking internal classes then. This 
is what is needed most ATM in order to allow the cocoon internals to 
more freely evolve.

--
Unico

Mime
View raw message