[Stripped case number from subject line in order to avoid archiving with the case.]
Brian Cameron writes: > Irene: > > > You are correct that the interface taxonomy are not related to the > > support model. However, it seems that many ARC cases don't include the > > support model. There's no area for us to specify the support model of a > > module in the ARC one-pager template. > > ARC has a sort of black & white worldview. If it's Volatile or higher > then it is supported. If it is Private, then it is not supported. That's not quite true. Support or the lack of it is a business decision. The interface stability classification system says *NOTHING* about support. What it gives you is the interface stability. In other words, it tells you when and how an interface might change, and how other software must be built or structured if it depends on those interfaces. It says nothing about whether anyone can or will answer the telephone when you call about a problem. It doesn't even say whether the stuff will _work_ at all. > ARC > does not support the idea of providing interfaces that are not supported > for end-users or developers to play with. That's not true. Consider "EV," "Beta Test," or even /usr/demo. The important thing the ARC expects is communication -- tell people what you're doing and how. If you can manage to do that, then you'll be at least 50% along the way. > All interfaces that are Volatile or higher need to be supported. No. That's a product decision. > Am I just confused, or is Solaris diverging from having a consistent > interface and support model story? That part *is* an important problem, and I have no idea how we manage that. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
