From dev-return-166293-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@commons.apache.org Sat Feb 10 15:17:31 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F46D18061A for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:17:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 1EC9D160C4D; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:17:31 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A3CC160C30 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:17:30 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 86681 invoked by uid 500); 10 Feb 2018 14:17:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 86665 invoked by uid 99); 10 Feb 2018 14:17:29 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org) (207.244.88.137) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:17:29 +0000 Received: from v45346.1blu.de (v45346.1blu.de [178.254.23.72]) by mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 4AD89B72 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:17:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by v45346.1blu.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F3F4F400A01; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:17:20 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Bodewig To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [All] Convention for "courtesy" codes? References: <00d791a9f3a05283964a12b0b993987a@scarlet.be> Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:17:20 +0100 In-Reply-To: <00d791a9f3a05283964a12b0b993987a@scarlet.be> (gilles@harfang.homelinux.org's message of "Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:58:54 +0100") Message-ID: <87inb5udxr.fsf@v45346.1blu.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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