Hello,
I think it is a very useful concept to have.
Other Apache projects have this conception too.
As an example I can provide spark special annotation for a public API [1]
InterfaceStability {
Unstable, Evolving, Stable
}
[1]
https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/common/tags/src/main/java/org/apache/spark/annotation/InterfaceStability.java
2017-09-13 22:35 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>:
> In first version the protocol version can be “0.1”, 0.2”, etc. Once we are
> sure the protocol is mature enough it can be stamped with version 1.0.
>
> The point is that the versions like 0.x imply that the protocol is not
> 100% final which is pretty similar but not that loud as the experimental
> label.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Sep 13, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Vladimir,
> >
> > As far as the client, I don't think we need to call it experimental. An
> > "experimental" feature sounds like it might explode if you come close :)
> >
> > How about we have client protocol versions instead? Then each Ignite
> > release can announce which protocol versions it is compatible with.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Igniters,
> >>
> >> I would propose to add a concept of "experimental feature". Quite often
> we
> >> face a situation when newly created feature has not-so-good API, or
> tested
> >> insufficiently, etc.. Many vendors employ a concept of so-called
> >> "experimental" features to mitigate the risks. Examples I am aware of:
> >> Hadoop, Kotlin.
> >>
> >> When feature is marked as experimental, there is no guarantees for API
> and
> >> binary compatibility, neither it implies that the feature is bug-free.
> On
> >> the other hand, users might start using the feature right away and
> provide
> >> valuable feedback.
> >>
> >> Let's add such concept to our product, and it would make it much better!
> >>
> >> First candidate for this marker is our newly developed thin client. We
> put
> >> a lot efforts to make it extensible in future, but I doubt it is
> possible
> >> to take in count everything at once. Instead, I would rather release it
> as
> >> "experimantel" in the scope of 2.3, and then finalize it as a part of
> 2.4
> >> based on user's feedback.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Vladimir.
> >>
>
>
--
Nikolay Izhikov
nizhikov....@gmail.com
