hadoop-mapreduce-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Lowe <jl...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Assume Private-Unstable for classes that are not annotated
Date Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:22:43 GMT
I think that's a reasonable proposal as long as we understand it changes 
the burden from finding all the things that should be marked @Private to 
finding all the things that should be marked @Public. As Tom Graves 
pointed out in an earlier discussion about @LimitedPrivate, it may be 
impossible to do a straightforward task and use only interfaces marked 
@Public.  If users can't do basic things without straying from @Public 
interfaces then tons of code can break if we assume it's always fair 
game to change anything not marked @Public.  The "well you shouldn't 
have used a non-@Public interface" argument is not very useful in that 
context.

So as long as we're good about making sure officially supported features 
have corresponding @Public interfaces to wield them then I agree it will 
be easier to track those rather than track all the classes that should 
be @Private.  Hopefully if users understand that's how things work 
they'll help file JIRAs for interfaces that need to be @Public to get 
their work done.

Jason

On 07/22/2014 04:54 PM, Karthik Kambatla wrote:
> Hi devs
>
> As you might have noticed, we have several classes and methods in them that
> are not annotated at all. This is seldom intentional. Avoiding incompatible
> changes to all these classes can be considerable baggage.
>
> I was wondering if we should add an explicit disclaimer in our
> compatibility guide that says, "Classes without annotations are to
> considered @Private"
>
> For methods, is it reasonable to say - "Class members without specific
> annotations inherit the annotations of the class"?
>
> Thanks
> Karthik
>


Mime
View raw message