Freeman Liu wrote: > Taking these applications into consideration, we can change the name to > something else, for example, > /dev/private_dsp, and it will be found by those applications. As for > sadasupport, the change is trivial. > And sadasupport is the only consumer of this device file in this phase. > > Do you think it a reasonable approach ?
If you intend to expose it in the future, but not today, the question is whether you expect to change its behavior between now and then? If not, then what is the "problem" you are protecting users and developers from by restricting their access today? If, in fact, the existence of /dev/dsp is effectively a de-facto public committed interface in the OSS meta-community today, then changing it incompatibly in phaseI seems wrong, especially if you intend on re-exposing it under the de-facto name in a later phase. (Note that the interface taxonomy levels do not equate in any way to the idea of secrecy or inaccessibility, but only to expectation setting advice about how much risk of incompatible change you take on by depending on something) -John
