On Friday 20 of July 2012, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Lubos Lunak wrote:
Hmm. That makes it something we should take into consideration then, but
that consideration may be quickly over with saying that it's internal API
and as such we don't care about people who abuse it.
There's more nuance required here I think. Substantial use of
"unstable" API still leaves us with noticeable repercussions on the
extension ecosystem, that we might want to have *once*, and not
spread over multiple releases.
Even if people actually do use our internal APIs, that doesn't mean we have
to leave it that way. And that does not necessarily mean hiding it
intentionally. If we are going to make the effort to keep those APIs stable,
we may as well just make them public.
And, in general, if it's likely that some internal APIs might be used from
the outside, then we should consider a way of avoiding that. If it's
internal, somebody is going to change it somewhen. So we should hide it, or
maybe somehow visible mark it as such and add "if you find this useful,
contact us about about it public", or so. Being afraid to change internal
interfaces just because somebody from the outside might be using that is just
lame (incidentally, that's another thing I have experience with).
--
Lubos Lunak
l.lunak@suse.cz
Context
- Re: Changes needed for "LibreOffice 4" (continued)
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.