+1 to continue using *internal* to differentiate code from external APIs The alternative would require Geode to be more modular, in which we have the external API in API- or SPI-specific jars and then the "internal" packages go into an implementation jar that needs to be on the classpath during runtime.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:30 AM, 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 > >
