On 14 March 2017 at 03:49, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Using interfaces and implementing them are two entirely separate things.
Good point; sorry I had overlooked the distinction. If there are no external implementions (yet) then I agree it should be OK to release with the existing caveat in the RN. It would probably be a good idea to warn consumers (in the Javadoc) that these IFs are not intended for implementation. Likewise for any other IFs that are intended for use only. > For instance, people use Logger instances, but we've added new APIs to that > interface in log4j-api while maintaining backwards compatibility (though we > do that by providing abstract base classes for implementations to use). Unfortunately I don't think that can be done here. > On 13 March 2017 at 21:08, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 14 March 2017 at 01:38, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > If they're not user-implemented interfaces, then changing them isn't >> really >> > a backwards incompatible change. >> >> I agree, but since users asked for the changes to the interfaces that >> suggests that the interfaces are being used externally. >> >> > On 13 March 2017 at 17:50, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On 13 March 2017 at 20:12, henrib <hen...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > The interface modifications are fixes to user enhancement requests: >> >> > >> >> > JEXL-211: Add callable method to JexlExpression interface >> >> > JEXL-198: JxltEngine Template deos not expose pragmas >> >> > JEXL-201: Allow Interpreter to use live values from JexlEngine.Option >> >> > interface implemented by JexlContext >> >> > >> >> > Note again that these interfaces are *not* expected to be implemented >> by >> >> > user code. >> >> >> >> I'm not sure I understand how that follows. >> >> >> >> If the JIRAs are enhancement requests for users, surely the intention >> >> is to allow the users to make use of the new methods? >> >> >> >> That suggests that the users are currently using the interfaces. >> >> >> >> > The likelihood of any user implementing those and not filling >> >> > enhancements requests or even asking questions in the Apache mailing >> >> lists >> >> > (or Stackoverflow) seems very small... >> >> >> >> Sorry, no idea what you mean by that. >> >> >> >> > Choice is please (the few) users using the library or stay true to a >> rule >> >> > that protects no real usage in this case. I wish this was seen as an >> easy >> >> > choice for the community. >> >> >> >> Nor that. >> >> >> >> > Cheers >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414. >> >> n4.nabble.com/jexl-3-1-release-review-tp4691513p4696492.html >> >> > Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > 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 >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
