> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 08:13:31PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > We have never before frozen an API, and I would prefer that we didn't > > freeze this one. If an API needs to change, then it should be allowed > > to change. The important thing is that we don't change APIs just for > > the sake of changing APIs. I also believe that we have done a VERY good > > job of creating a structure that won't require API changes in 2.0. But, > > I don't think we should rule it out just because we went GA. > > My concern is that when we make all of the renames to APR (or > any other changes), we'll be killing our third-parties who tried to > migrate to 2.0 and we changed the underlying API on them breaking > their work. I'm not sure I can support that. -- Justin
The point is that we have been able to support it in the past. If we change the name of a function, then we must create a macro so that we don't break every function that uses it. If we need to add an argument to a function, then add the argument and bump the MMN. As long as the changes are required, then we have to do them. Again, the key is to make sure that they are really required before the API is changed. Ryan
