The user shouldn't need to access any of the protobuf classes directly. I'm in favor of making all of the protobuf-related packages internal, including any classes generated from .proto files.
Sarge > On 11 Aug, 2017, at 11:30, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > We have policies in place for versioning [1] and backwards compatibility [2]. > How do we identify which API’s need to be controlled? > > In many cases we use the *.internal.* package naming format to signal API’s > that aren’t subject to backwards compatibility requirements. API’s within > these internal packages can change and do change even within minor or patch > releases. If a user creates an application that relies on an internal API, > it may need to be changed during an upgrade. > > I’ve noticed that we haven’t been following this convention for some newer > changes (such as in geode-protobuf). Should we review and modify the > packages names continue using the *.internal.* format? > > > Anthony > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=57311457 > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Managing+Backward+Compatibility >
