cstamas commented on PR #2041:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/2041#issuecomment-2598319550
Sure, we cannot prevent any (mis)use of these artifacts.
BUT, in my POV, we do _owe some promises_ to the first group (using them "as
intended"), but we _do not owe any promises_ for the second group.
The second case parallel could be "is a book publisher/author guilty, if I
used their book to stack my shelf with porcelain, but it failed, and I lost my
family heritage of expensive porcelain". Yes, books can be used to
stack/support things, but that is not their "intended use". For me, your use
case do exists, but is not my role to "prevent breaking it".
I always assumed that programmers can read ("what should I do" vs "what can
I do"). Documents like this one
https://maven.apache.org/resolver/api-compatibility.html explains it. Those
"what can I do" are left on their own. The CAN do it, I will not prevent them
(making their but our lives more miserable by locking down all into private
classes), but they should be aware that they are on their own. Or to rephrase:
when I look onto a library, I don't consider a class "part of API" _only due
it's public modifier_. Many things counts, like for example package is in
`...impl` or `...internal`, etc. Is not and was never black or white.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
