commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: [All] Convention for "courtesy" codes?
Date Sat, 10 Feb 2018 19:50:26 GMT
On 2018-02-10, Gilles wrote:

> 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"?

Gary's response likely stems from me misunderstanding what you asked
about. I overlooked you said "modules" and assumed you were talking
about parts of an artifact which otherwise should evolve in a backwards
compatible way.

If a whole artifact is not considered something that is there for public
consumption as an API then I'd just say so (inside the POM, in javadocs,
on the website ...) and not care for backwards compatibility at all.

IMHO we don't need any rules for something like this, proper
documentaton should be enough.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message