I think this is fairly important to do so I went ahead and created a PR for the first mini step: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/15374
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > Looks like I'm general people like it. Next step is for somebody to take > the lead and implement it. > > Tom do you have cycles to do this? > > > On Wednesday, August 24, 2016, Tom Graves <tgraves...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> ping, did this discussion conclude or did we decide what we are doing? >> >> Tom >> >> >> On Friday, May 13, 2016 3:19 PM, Michael Armbrust <mich...@databricks.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> +1 to the general structure of Reynold's proposal. I've found what we do >> currently a little confusing. In particular, it doesn't make much sense >> that @DeveloperApi things are always labeled as possibly changing. For >> example the Data Source API should arguably be one of the most stable >> interfaces since its very difficult for users to recompile libraries that >> might break when there are changes. >> >> For a similar reason, I don't really see the point of LimitedPrivate. >> The goal here should be communication of promises of stability or future >> stability. >> >> Regarding Developer vs. Public. I don't care too much about the naming, >> but it does seem useful to differentiate APIs that we expect end users to >> consume from those that are used to augment Spark. "Library" and >> "Application" also seem reasonable. >> >> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Marcelo Vanzin <van...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> > I think LimitedPrivate gets a bad rap due to the way it is misused in >> > Hadoop. The use case here -- "we offer this to developers of >> > intermediate layers; those willing to update their software as we >> > update ours" >> >> I think "LimitedPrivate" is a rather confusing name for that. I think >> Reynold's first e-mail better matches that use case: this would be >> "InterfaceAudience(Developer)" and "InterfaceStability(Experimental)". >> >> But I don't really like "Developer" as a name here, because it's >> ambiguous. Developer of what? Theoretically everybody writing Spark or >> on top of its APIs is a developer. In that sense, I prefer using >> something like "Library" and "Application" instead of "Developer" and >> "Public". >> >> Personally, in fact, I don't see a lot of gain in differentiating >> between the target users of an interface... knowing whether it's a >> stable interface or not is a lot more useful. If you're equating a >> "developer API" with "it's not really stable", then you don't really >> need two annotations for that - just say it's not stable. >> >> -- >> Marcelo >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org >> >> >> >> >>
