Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <434E93D5.6090507@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:05:25 -0400
From: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: Public/Private classification
References: <20051013102553.17521.qmail@web26809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
 <434E7832.5010106@reverycodes.com>
In-Reply-To: <434E7832.5010106@reverycodes.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> 
>> --- Daniel Fagerstrom <danielf@nada.kth.se> schrieb:
>>
>>> IMO we need to find two set of interfaces/classes:
>>> the API of Cocoon, and the set of classes (components) that an
>>> application programmer need JavaDoc for.
> 
> 
> If it ain't public API you ain't need Javadoc for it, period.
> 
> 
>>> WDYT?
>>
>>
>> I agree completly with you!
> 
> 
> I don't. You both miss the point, which is: It is JFDI effort which 
> should bring  in results quickly, namely set of public classes which are 
> agreed by *whole community* to be public, which means *everybody* agrees 
> that these classes and interfaces will be supported and carefully evolved.
> 
> If you don't agree with public denominator on one of the classes, just 
> mark it D  (we are looking for consensus here!) and have a healthy 
> lengthy discussion about it, but please don't block this effort to 
> produce *good-enough* results quickly in the sake of ivory tower of 
> perfect API separation and bundles and what not... So, are you on board?

Amen.

-- 
Stefano.