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.

David

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"...
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message