Public vs internal APIs
От | Vladimir Sitnikov |
---|---|
Тема | Public vs internal APIs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB=Je-Ha1mDY5Yzk035zEEQGFOTcMN71Gtpdo8CqjYfMAFJKRQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Public vs internal APIs
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
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 clearly mark 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
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: