If a Java package and artifact ID contain "internal" or "private" in the name, that would be pretty clear.
Gary On Feb 10, 2018 07:17, "Stefan Bodewig" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2018-02-10, Gilles wrote: > > > Is there a convention for distinguishing codes with > > compatibility requirements from codes provided as > > development tools (unit tests, benchmarking, usage > > examples, integration tests, ...)? > > In Compress we once had a package named _internal_ and a package level > javadoc that said "This package is not part of Commons Compress' > published API." > > http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-compress/ > javadocs/api-1.7/org/apache/commons/compress/compressors/ > z/_internal_/package-summary.html > > There also is a package that says "Experimental" in its javadocs, but to > be honest it hasn't change din years (but likely isn't really used by > anybody either). > > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
