Re: Public vs internal APIs

Actually I would be a friend of instead restructuring the package hierarchy, as this is was it was invented for
originally.;-) 

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir Sitnikov
Sent: Donnerstag, 23. Juli 2015 17:33
To: List
Subject: [JDBC] Public vs internal APIs

Hi,

I'm looking into implementing java.sql.Struct in the jdbc driver, and it turns out I do not like PGObject for various
reasons.
E.g. it cannot "append itself to a buffer", it ties decoding with PGObject itself.

I'm going to try another approach, however I would like to avoid leaking that API to the public API of the driver.

Having said that, I wonder what if we add: @ExperimentalAPI, @PublicAPI, @InternalAPI kind of annotations, so we can
clearlymark internal classes as, well, internal so our clients would not accidentally depend on the internal classes? 

Java does not yet allow to define "published API" (see [1]), so it would be nice to mark some APIs as internal.

For instance it makes sense marking the following classes as @InternalAPI:
   org.postgresql.util.LruCache
   org.postgresql.core.Parser
   etc

[1]: http://martinfowler.com/ieeeSoftware/published.pdf

--
Regards,
Vladimir Sitnikov


--
Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc