Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Mark Martin wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Garrett D'Amore <gdamore at sun.com >> <mailto:gdamore at sun.com>> wrote: >> >> I'm not sure you really need to call out the public DDI interfaces >> used by the project. Apart from the weird line breaks in the >> e-mail, the opinion looks good to me. >> >> >> Garrett, >> >> Thanks for the review. >> >> RE: line breaks -- probably my fault. I copy/pasted from notepad on >> a Windows box. >> >> Is there any harm in leaving those interface definitions in? I can >> certainly remove that whole "Imported Interfaces" table, but I'm >> (privately) debating the value of and feasibility of a project that >> might be able to scrape some of that information out of the entire >> public caselog. In this case, that's very detailed import >> information that may get lost. Or perhaps scrapping the published >> caselog documentation has no value and automated tools to check the >> actual code/binaries would be of more value anyway. > > There's no harm, that I can see, but little value either. Since the > API is public, we'd never be able to remove or change it anyway, > because we couldn't find all consumers. > > In fact, we can't find such consumers anyway via case logs, since the > normal practice is not to declare public Committed APIs that are > imported. > > -- Garrett
The short answer is "its your choice" - no harm, no foul. - jek3
