On Oct 18, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Leif Hedstrom <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Uri Shachar <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> cheers, >>> James >> >> +1 with a couple of suggested add-ons: >> >> 1) New API should be >> committed into experimental.h and moved into ts.h after a couple of >> weeks (3-4?) - this should be compulsory for API which didn't follow >> this new process, and encouraged for API which has. >> The goal is to give a bit more time for comments before we commit ourselves >> to supporting the API for a fairly long period.... >> Frankly >> - I like experimental.h - even though it is a bit of a cruft bucket. As >> long as the cruft is limited to the API layer, cleaning it up >> occasionally seems like a fair price for maintaining flexibility. > > experimental.h should be cleaned out, it’s mostly legacy stuff from various > customer specific additions. I moved a bunch from it to ts.h a long time ago, > but left some which I didn’t know what to do with. > > Also note that IMO, it’s ok to add additional experimental include files as > appropriate, as long as we migrate them to remap.h / ts.h or whatever frozen > includes that we have, once finalized. > > Igor: The point of “experimental” include files / APIs would be that yes, > they are “free for all”, you can break them / modify them at any time. The > idea would be to make the APIs available for others to use / test, but not > deal with the backward compatibility clause. > > Maybe it ought to be #include <ts/experimental/some_api_feature.h> ? > > >> >> 2) Adding a suggestion for new API to be integrated into a sample plugin - >> giving users a good sample to copy. > > > +1. > > One caveat though; there might be cases where a new API is very reasonable, > and goes through reviews etc., but the original author might not be able to > disclose / share the plugin that is her specific use case. Do we require them > to make a “dummy” plugin for that? That seems a little wonky, but it would > fit into the “examples” plugin directory to have such plugins which don’t do > anything useful. I added <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/API+Review+Process>. Does this accurately reflect the consensus here? J
