How do you get more input about the API if the consumer can unilaterally ask for access?
--emi ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 21 July 2018 12:43 PM, Neil C Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2018, 08:59 Geertjan Wielenga, > > [email protected] wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Emilian Bold < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think you are annoyed by friend APIs just because nobody cared through > > > > > > time about those APIs to bring them to a public API. > > ... > > > > Note that the Friend API is not only for NetBeans! ... I understand the > > > > > > frustration but it's a frustration with the NetBeans codebase, not the > > > > > > concept itself. > > Well, to balance things out, -1. :-) > > I personally am frustrated precisely with the concept itself, at least for > > non-stable APIs. IMO it's the wrong way around. It should be for the > > consumer of an API to request unstable access, not the provider to grant > > it. Which incidentally is probably a good way of getting more input into > > the evolution of the API? > > A non-stable API in NetBeans is also stable for the release it's in AFAIK. > > Best wishes, > > Neil > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
