On 13.06.16 20:54, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Thomas Vandahl <t...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 05.06.16 20:33, James Carman wrote: >>> Not quite. OSGi is a special case. It's much more restrictive than simple >>> J2SE, because it can be. In the general case, the public API for OSGi is >>> different from the public API for J2SE. Let's not confuse the two. >> >> My intention was to use the OSGi meta data to define something that we >> consider a public API. I agree to Sebastian that this might be difficult >> for some components as they were not designed with a separation of >> public and private API in mind. That's why I believe that suing >> something a little more restrictive may help us to move forward and >> improve the situation. > > IMO, we are only complicating the situation, because that would only > make the situation less clear. Right now, we suggest that the project > retains binary compatibility, unless explicitly documented (via > package name, and Maven coordinates). Give > But we gain flexibility. Take JCS. The "public API" is basically just what CacheAccess and friends define. Everything else is implementation-specific. So the public API could be stable for a long time while everything under the hood can be redesigned. I have quite some experience with this approach and would prefer it over the current commons policy any time.
Bye, Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
