On Sun, 28 May 2006, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sun, 28 May 2006 11:12:19 +0900):
Am I allowed to call this a tempest in a teacup?
There, I just have.
While I think that there have been some very good points made both ways, I
believe that since the documentation will be generated only by people who
are using the system, and will not appear on line, or in a manual, that we
do not need to worry about this. It is, IMHO, easier
As Scott already said: it doesn't matter if it is made public or not. "The
bad guys"(TM) will use non-public functions regardless.
I think the bad guys concept is a red herring. Not even having the source
code matters for bad guys -- there's some darn evil code that runs on entirely
closed source platforms and run-time patches kernels. This code is by
necessity very fragile, and the vendors of those closed source systems work
hard to try and convince people to use published APIs, and add APIs to try and
facilitate it. Otherwise they risk one of the Evil Apps hitting the Critical
Must Support List, and leaving them stuck for how to change the kernel in the
future.
Presumably, what matters to us is making it clear what APIs (structures, etc)
are intended for "external" use -- i.e., use that doesn't closely track
internal development. It's seeming to me more and more like we should
consider Doxygen an "internal" use tool, label it as such, and not try to use
it as documentation for developers programming to plug-in interfaces.
Robert N M Watson
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
