Thanks sebb for the feedback. All the implementation classes shouldn't public. we are working on this. A JIRA (CRYPTO-71) was already created for the cipher implementation classes. We will continue.
Regards, Xianda -----Original Message----- From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 5:20 PM To: CommonsDev Subject: [CRYPTO] Documenting the public API before it is too late... There does not currently seem to be any indication of which classes are part of the public API and which are only public or protected because of the restrictions of the Java permission scheme. Since there has so far been no release, this is the ideal time to document which APIs are intended to be public, and which are definitely not. If the distinction can be made now, then it will make changes to implementation classes much easier in the future. One such way is to move all the non-API classes into a separate /internal/ package hierarchy. The advantages of this are: - self-documenting - easy to check which public classes use the internal classes; in particular that they are not used as parameter or return types. - easy to exclude the internal classes from Clirr or other compatibility reports Other schemes are of course possible. But please can we document the public API before it is too late? Thanks! --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
