db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Should we vote on it? (was Re: Discussion (in preparation for a vote) on interface stability table)
Date Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:48:20 GMT
Hi, John, thanks for reviewing this.

I agree "Private Unstable" sounds more unstable than "Private."  I don't 
know if we need "Private Unstable" and I can remove it.  Alternately, we 
could rename "Private" to "Private Volatile" :)

I'll get rid of Private Unstable for now since we don't have any 
interfaces that meet that requirement, and may never.  We can always add 
it in later.


John Embretsen wrote:
> Friday, March 31, 2006, 9:34:30 PM CET, David W. Van Couvering wrote:
>>I've updated the Wiki page to reflect some of this discussion and my 
>>sense of where things are ending up.  You can use the diff mechanism of 
>>the Wiki to see what's changed.
> I was trying to understand all the different stability levels you
> suggested on http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/ForwardCompatibility, and
> have one question:
> Do we really have to differentiate between between a "Private" and a
> "Private Unstable" interface?
> If so, can you also explain to me why you are saying that "Private"
> interfaces allow incompatible change at any time, while "Private
> Unstable" only allows such changes at minor release? To me the term
> "Private Unstable" certainly sounds less stable than "Private"...

View raw message