| From: | "Markus KARG" <markus(at)headcrashing(dot)eu> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'List'" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Public vs internal APIs |
| Date: | 2015-07-23 17:50:23 |
| Message-ID: | 002c01d0c570$0cd3f1d0$267bd570$@eu |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Well, yes, I also don't think that it would work well in the long term. But we could go with the ".internal" subpackage for example.
On the other hand I wonder wether the risk of using internal stuff really exists. I mean, people shall code against java.* API, not against org.postgresql implementation. If we make this clear in the JavaDocs, maybe it is enough?
-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Sitnikov [mailto:sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 23. Juli 2015 19:12
To: Markus KARG
Cc: List
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Public vs internal APIs
Any hint to the project that successfully uses "all stuff in a single
java package" approach?
I'm afraid that is too tight.
For instance, RxJava mixes "annotations and internal package"
approach: https://github.com/ReactiveX/RxJava#versioning
Vladimir
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2015-07-23 18:11:15 | Re: Public vs internal APIs |
| Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2015-07-23 17:11:58 | Re: Public vs internal APIs |