On 09/15/2017 11:40 AM, Kevin Kane via iotivity-dev wrote: > I recall it being because the API design was poor, and we didn't want to be > stuck with it. So, we marked it experimental so developers can use it, but > with the proviso that it may have breaking changes in future versions. > > From: iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org > [mailto:iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Heldt-Sheller, > Nathan > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 10:24 AM > To: iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org > Subject: [dev] Why was securityvirtualresourcetypes.h moved to "experimental" > folder? > > Hello folks, > > Can someone please remind me the purpose/criteria for moving something to > "experimental" folder? This file in question is literally *the* main > Security Layer header file... I imagine an outside developer would be very > confused to find it in the experimental folder. > > Thanks, > Nathan
While we're at this topic, 1.3-rel and master are out of sync about headers that have been moved to experimental. the original subject of this question is in both: resource/csdk/security/include/experimental/securevirtualresourcetypes.h but there are four other headers that are experimental in master but not in 1.3-rel: resource/csdk/logger/include/experimental/logger_types.h resource/csdk/logger/include/experimental/logger.h resource/csdk/stack/include/experimental/payload_logging.h resource/c_common/ocrandom/include/experimental/ocrandom.h looked at from a dispassionate viewpoint rather than a historical one, this makes no sense at all: how can these headers be mainstream in the release that is about to be made, if their status in master is saying we don't yet trust them to represent stable API? is this really what we wanted? _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
