On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:00 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: > Yes, I'm advocating for the freedom to drop undeprecated APIs in 2.0.0. > This is not something I encourage but I think this is something we should > have in our pocket just in case. >
What do you think about the following? * API must be deprecated in 1.X release before it can be deprecated in 2.0.0 * Introduce new API in 1.8 w/ old API in deprecated form * In 2.0.0 we drop old API This way we do not have the long lived support tail for the old API that I think is one of your concerns. However this is still a nice bridge release for users (one of my concerns). > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:59 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:17 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > John Vines wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Keith Turner<ke...@deenlo.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Josh Elser< > josh.el...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> John Vines wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Though I feel the biggest reasoning is our switch to semantic > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> versioning. And from semver.org, > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API > > > > changes > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Right and dropping deprecated APIs is an incompatible > > change. > > > > Do > > > > > >>>>>>> you > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> think > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> the following two rules are reasonable? > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> * When API is deprecated, must offer replacement if > > > feasible. > > > > > >>>>>>> * Can only drop deprecated method when MAJOR version is > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> incremented > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> (there > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> are other proposed constraints on dropping deprecated > > methods) > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> If we follow the above, then we can not deprecate current > > API > > > > > >>>>>>> before > > > > > >>>>>>> introducing new API (because the replacement would not > > exist > > > > > >>>>>>> concurrently). Also we can not drop the current API in > > 2.0.0 > > > > if > > > > > >>>>>>> its > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> not > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> deprecated. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> It is totally a reasonable statement for after 2.0.0. But > for > > > > 2.0.0 > > > > > I > > > > > >>>>> am > > > > > >>>>> not okay making this guarantee because I would rather > sacrifice > > > > > >>>>> backward > > > > > >>>>> compatibility for an API that isn't plagued by shortcomings > of > > > the > > > > > old > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> API > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Again, this is the fear/concern of impacting the new API due > to > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> supporting > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> of the old which *may or may not even happen*. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Good point, we could adopt these rules now and never create a > > new > > > > > >>> API. I > > > > > >>> think we would be better off adopting this now regardless of > > wether > > > > not > > > > > >>> we > > > > > >>> introduce a new API in the future. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Also, if we do eventually create an API. How is it user > > unfriendly > > > > to > > > > > >>> have > > > > > >>> the old API around in deprecated form? The deprecation > markings > > > > > clearly > > > > > >>> communicate that someone writing new code should not use the > old > > > API. > > > > > >>> However it still allows existing code that users invested time > > into > > > > > >>> writing > > > > > >>> to run w/o issue against 2.0.0. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> I feel like I'm repeating myself. My concern is that the > > > > implementation > > > > > >> details of maintaining the 1.x API in deprecated form will have > a > > > > > negative > > > > > >> impact on the 2.0 API due to implementation details. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, Keith, you misinterpreted what I meant -- let me try to > > > > restate. I > > > > > > am assuming that a new API will happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is only a possibility is that the old API implementation > would > > > > > > negatively affect the new API. John's concern is a hypothetical > one > > > > that > > > > > > isn't based on any *actual* implementation details. He's assuming > > > that > > > > we > > > > > > will hit some sort of roadblock which we would be unable to > resolve > > > in > > > > a > > > > > > desirable way (a way that would not negatively impact 2.0 API). > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying is that we should address those issues if and > when > > we > > > > get > > > > > > there. When we have context to a concrete problem, we can make a > > > > decision > > > > > > there about how to proceed. Meanwhile, we act under > best-intentions > > > to > > > > > keep > > > > > > the 1.0 APIs around. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you get what I'm suggesting, John? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm totally okay with this. But that means no requirements about > APIs > > > > from > > > > > 1.x to 2.0. I'd be comfortable with changing the verbiage to > > something > > > > that > > > > > lessens to encourage effort to support deprecated APIs so long as > > they > > > > > don't influence 2.0 APIs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing to consider is that the proposal has language for making > > > > exceptions, a majority vote. What are your thoughts on that language? > > > > > > > > > > That's great they're adjustable. I'm not going to agree to language now > > > that I currently disagree with, especially language that may be > difficult > > > > > > > What language would you like to see? AFAICT you are advocating that any > > committer should be able to freely drop undeprecated APIs in 2.0.0? > > > > > > > to be amended. Not everyone seems to have an understanding of my > concerns > > > and the level of impact it has and that makes me question the ability > to > > > get a vote through to retract that portion of the language should it > > arise. > > > > > >
