I am too. And I think we should document precisely what is public and what is private across the entire codebase.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Dan Bress <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm fine with the package name being changed in 0.3.0 > > Dan Bress > Software Engineer > ONYX Consulting Services > > ________________________________________ > From: Mark Payne <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 3:01 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Write-Ahead-Log package name change? > > Ryan, > > The WAL is certainly not defined in the nifi-api. But it does live in the > nifi-commons module. Not entirely sure if i would consider it "public" or not. > > My suggestion is to change the package name for the 0.3.0 release, which is a > minor version. > > Thanks > -Mark > > ---------------------------------------- >> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:38:02 -0700 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Write-Ahead-Log package name change? >> >> Is the WAL a public API? I thought that it was internal, in which case a >> rename should be fine. Otherwise we would have to bump the major version >> number (or minor depending on discussion) to account for the change. >> >> rb >> >> On 08/03/2015 11:53 AM, Mark Payne wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I recently realized that the nifi-write-ahead-log module (under >>> nifi-commons) is using a package name of "org.wali" instead of >>> "org.apache.nifi.wal" >>> >>> This has been the package name since the software was open sourced, >>> unfortunately. I would like to change the package name for the 0.3.0 >>> version of NiFi, if there are no objections. >>> >>> The pre-0.3.0 versions would, of course, still be available if anyone has a >>> dependency on the classes, but I would like to get this fixed so that it is >>> correct going forward. >>> >>> Is there any reason that we cannot change this for the 0.3.0 release? >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Mark >>> >> >> >> -- >> Ryan Blue >> Software Engineer >> Cloudera, Inc.
