commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [POOL] documenting the public API
Date Fri, 04 May 2012 16:37:04 GMT
Putting the "internal" stuff in specially-named packages would also help in
OSGi-land.  The felix bundle plugin will not export anything in the "impl"
or "internal" packages.

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I think it would be useful to try and specify upfront which public
> >classes / methods etc are intended to form part of the public API, to
> >distinguish them from items that are public merely to allow internal
> >access between packages.
>
> I'd prefer to move things between packages and make them package private
> if at all possible. I should be able to take a look at that over the next
> few days. I have an OS license of Structure 101 and I'll run that over it
> as well along with PMD and friends.
>
> >If changes are later needed to public classes that are documented as
> >not being part of the public API, we can potentially break binary
> >compatibility if necessary.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >Maybe consider using a separate package name element such as "internal"
> >?
>
> If a separate package helps sort out what is API and what isn't then +1.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message