Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <48FEF753.2090002@getopt.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:50:11 +0200
From: Andrzej Bialecki <ab@getopt.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Relax backwards-compatibility policy for package-protected
 APIs
References: <48FE4D78.2070505@gmail.com> <48FE51DD.8090006@apache.org>
 <48FE5C78.6080908@gmail.com>
 <5E2DEA6D-FB4B-462D-91C5-091D72EEDA5C@mikemccandless.com>
In-Reply-To: <5E2DEA6D-FB4B-462D-91C5-091D72EEDA5C@mikemccandless.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Michael McCandless wrote:
> 
> I think *not* having to maintain back compat of the package private APIs 
> is very important to keeping our freedom (and sanity!) to continue to 
> improve Lucene.  This is similar to marking a new API as experimental 
> and subject to suddenly change in the next release: it reserves our 
> future freedom.

Definitely +1 on this strategy, so long as it's clearly documented.

Example: I'm working on a new version of Luke, where I use some of the 
internal and experimental APIs (e.g. the commit points), being aware 
that things may break in nasty ways if I upgrade to a different version 
of Lucene. I've been forewarned, and I won't complain. :)

-- 
Best regards,
Andrzej Bialecki     <><
  ___. ___ ___ ___ _ _   __________________________________
[__ || __|__/|__||\/|  Information Retrieval, Semantic Web
___|||__||  \|  ||  |  Embedded Unix, System Integration
http://www.sigram.com  Contact: info at sigram dot com


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org