Stas Bekman wrote: > Thanks for making the mp1 vs mp2 API get/set comparison and the patch, > Fred. Your original version is now mostly integrated in various commits. > > I'm not quite agreeing with Philippe and Geoff. Blindly opening up > fields, which have no special ap_ accessors for them is probably a good > recipe into getting in troubles. I know Geoff's favorite phrase is "give > them the feature and they will find the use for it". In this particular > case, I'd suggest to be more cautious and leave things readonly until > someone will ask to open up the accessor(s) to be settable.
looks like it was more than a suggestion, since you went ahead and committed the changes despite the comments from philippe and I. > If you think some method should be settable, come up with an example > where it'll be useful, I believe we did that in all cases where we wanted to maintain writability. > It doesn't > take more than 1 second to open it up. > make it a test and see if it works, then open it > up. I know we have quite a few methods whose settable functionality is > not tested, but it really should. these both go to the point we have discussed before, and which I thought we had agreed upon, namely that 2.0 should be API freeze for documented and tested methods, but that we would allow untested methods/functionalities in under the caveat that the interface may change or completely go away. isn't that what we had agreed upon? --Geoff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
