sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I think it would be useful to try and specify upfront which public >classes / methods etc are intended to form part of the public API, to >distinguish them from items that are public merely to allow internal >access between packages. I'd prefer to move things between packages and make them package private if at all possible. I should be able to take a look at that over the next few days. I have an OS license of Structure 101 and I'll run that over it as well along with PMD and friends. >If changes are later needed to public classes that are documented as >not being part of the public API, we can potentially break binary >compatibility if necessary. Agreed. >Maybe consider using a separate package name element such as "internal" >? If a separate package helps sort out what is API and what isn't then +1. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
