On 2018-04-24, sebb wrote: > On 23 April 2018 at 20:48, Torsten Curdt <tcu...@vafer.org> wrote: >> TBH I am not such super big fan of adding and maintaining a high level >> API at this stage. >> You will never find the right abstraction that everyone is happy with. >> If you would - well, then that should be the real API afterall.
>> Honestly - I would just add example code for now. Maybe that can turn >> into a helper class in the long run. >> But for now we would not introduce something we may no longer break. > I like the idea of introducing it as example code. > That makes it obvious that it will change. As the only people who spoke up prefer to not provide the API as an officially supported one, I'm fine with moving the stuff to an examples package, add a warning and add unit tests so we now it keeps on working. Unless anybody yells and says "no we really need this high level API", that is. I'd still like to spend some time and gather feedback on a nicer API than many overloads - is fluent the way to go? > If not, maybe put the code in an experimental package. The changeset package is in this state and has been like this for years now, I doubt we'd ever get anything out of the experimental phase :-) Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
