commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jexl] 3.1 release review
Date Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:43:31 GMT
On 14 March 2017 at 03:49, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
> Using interfaces and implementing them are two entirely separate things.

Good point; sorry I had overlooked the distinction.

If there are no external implementions (yet) then I agree it should be
OK to release with the existing caveat in the RN.

It would probably be a good idea to warn consumers (in the Javadoc)
that these IFs are not intended for implementation.
Likewise for any other IFs that are intended for use only.

> For instance, people use Logger instances, but we've added new APIs to that
> interface in log4j-api while maintaining backwards compatibility (though we
> do that by providing abstract base classes for implementations to use).

Unfortunately I don't think that can be done here.

> On 13 March 2017 at 21:08, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 14 March 2017 at 01:38, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > If they're not user-implemented interfaces, then changing them isn't
>> really
>> > a backwards incompatible change.
>>
>> I agree, but since users asked for the changes to the interfaces that
>> suggests that the interfaces are being used externally.
>>
>> > On 13 March 2017 at 17:50, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 13 March 2017 at 20:12, henrib <henrib@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The interface modifications are fixes to user enhancement requests:
>> >> >
>> >> > JEXL-211: Add callable method to JexlExpression interface
>> >> > JEXL-198: JxltEngine Template deos not expose pragmas
>> >> > JEXL-201: Allow Interpreter to use live values from JexlEngine.Option
>> >> > interface implemented by JexlContext
>> >> >
>> >> > Note again that these interfaces are *not* expected to be implemented
>> by
>> >> > user code.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure I understand how that follows.
>> >>
>> >> If the JIRAs are enhancement requests for users, surely the intention
>> >> is to allow the users to make use of the new methods?
>> >>
>> >> That suggests that the users are currently using the interfaces.
>> >>
>> >> > The likelihood of any user implementing those and not filling
>> >> > enhancements requests or even asking questions in the Apache mailing
>> >> lists
>> >> > (or Stackoverflow) seems very small...
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, no idea what you mean by that.
>> >>
>> >> > Choice is please (the few) users using the library or stay true to
a
>> rule
>> >> > that protects no real usage in this case. I wish this was seen as an
>> easy
>> >> > choice for the community.
>> >>
>> >> Nor that.
>> >>
>> >> > Cheers
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.
>> >> n4.nabble.com/jexl-3-1-release-review-tp4691513p4696492.html
>> >> > Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >> >
>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message