commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
Subject Re: [All] Convention for "courtesy" codes?
Date Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:18:48 GMT
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 08:08:12 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
> If a Java package and artifact ID contain "internal" or "private" in 
> the
> name, that would be pretty clear.

Do you suggest that, say, the benchmarking codes in
"commons-rng-jmh" should be located in a top package
named "o.a.c.rng.jmh.internal"?
If all codes in a module are internal, it is redundant.
As I've written, it is pretty clear that "examples" or
"benchmarks" are not part of the "library".
What I'm asking is how to convey that <some_module>
should not be limited in its evolution (through
successive versions) by JAR hell considerations,
or Clirr errors.

Gilles

>
> Gary
>
> On Feb 10, 2018 07:17, "Stefan Bodewig" <bodewig@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-10, Gilles wrote:
>>
>> > Is there a convention for distinguishing codes with
>> > compatibility requirements from codes provided as
>> > development tools (unit tests, benchmarking, usage
>> > examples, integration tests, ...)?
>>
>> In Compress we once had a package named _internal_ and a package 
>> level
>> javadoc that said "This package is not part of Commons Compress'
>> published API."
>>
>> http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-compress/
>> javadocs/api-1.7/org/apache/commons/compress/compressors/
>> z/_internal_/package-summary.html
>>
>> There also is a package that says "Experimental" in its javadocs, 
>> but to
>> be honest it hasn't change din years (but likely isn't really used 
>> by
>> anybody either).
>>
>> Stefan
>>


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


Mime
View raw message