geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael William Dodge <mdo...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: []DISCUSS] Using package names to identify public API's
Date Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:34:38 GMT
The user shouldn't need to access any of the protobuf classes directly. I'm in favor of making
all of the protobuf-related packages internal, including any classes generated from .proto
files.

Sarge
 
> On 11 Aug, 2017, at 11:30, Anthony Baker <abaker@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
> We have policies in place for versioning [1] and backwards compatibility [2].  How do
we identify which API’s need to be controlled?
> 
> In many cases we use the *.internal.* package naming format to signal API’s that aren’t
subject to backwards compatibility requirements.  API’s within these internal packages can
change and do change even within minor or patch releases.  If a user creates an application
that relies on an internal API, it may need to be changed during an upgrade.
> 
> I’ve noticed that we haven’t been following this convention for some newer changes
(such as in geode-protobuf).  Should we review and modify the packages names continue using
the *.internal.* format?
> 
> 
> Anthony
> 
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=57311457
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Managing+Backward+Compatibility
> 


Mime
View raw message