I found bug GEODE-3473 which was created based on this discussion. I marked that as requiring a fix for 1.3.0, so we don't ship these protobuf related internal classes as part of the public API.
-Dan On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 9:42 AM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote: > On the flip side of internal vs. external APIs, I definitely feel there are > many classes under "*.internal" packages that should be reviewed and made > public. I realize it increases the surface area of maintainability and > support for backwards compatibility, but anytime an application needs > access to the functionality the "internal" API provides, those are good > candidates. Keep in mind that there is a huge disparity between the public > API and cache.xml at the moment and applications coded to the API (rather > than XML) are going to suffer. > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Ernest Burghardt <eburgha...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > +1 for protobuf being internal as they are not intended to be first class > > OO citizens you can read more about there here > > <https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/javatutorial> (the > > same warning exists for all supported languages btw) > > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Michael William Dodge < > mdo...@pivotal.io > > > > > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -John > john.blum10101 (skype) >
