Thanks everyone for chiming in. I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-10896 as a 2.5 blocker.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Chris Nauroth <cnaur...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > +1 for the proposal. > > I believe stating that "classes without annotations are implicitly private" > is consistent with what we publish for our JavaDocs. > IncludePublicAnnotationsStandardDoclet, used in the root pom.xml, filters > out classes that don't explicitly have the Public annotation. > > Chris Nauroth > Hortonworks > http://hortonworks.com/ > > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > Fair points, Jason. > > > > The fact that we include this in the compatibility guideline "should not" > > affect how developers go about this. We should still strive to annotate > > every new class we add, and reviewers should continue to check for them. > > However, in case we miss annotations, we won't be burdened to support > those > > APIs for essentially eternity. > > > > I am aware of downstream projects that use @Private APIs, but I have also > > seen that improve in the recent past with compatible 2.x releases. So, I > am > > hoping they will let us know of APIs they would like to see and > eventually > > use only Public-Stable APIs. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Jason Lowe <jl...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid > > > > wrote: > > > > > I think that's a reasonable proposal as long as we understand it > changes > > > the burden from finding all the things that should be marked @Private > to > > > finding all the things that should be marked @Public. As Tom Graves > > pointed > > > out in an earlier discussion about @LimitedPrivate, it may be > impossible > > to > > > do a straightforward task and use only interfaces marked @Public. If > > users > > > can't do basic things without straying from @Public interfaces then > tons > > of > > > code can break if we assume it's always fair game to change anything > not > > > marked @Public. The "well you shouldn't have used a non-@Public > > > interface" argument is not very useful in that context. > > > > > > So as long as we're good about making sure officially supported > features > > > have corresponding @Public interfaces to wield them then I agree it > will > > be > > > easier to track those rather than track all the classes that should be > > > @Private. Hopefully if users understand that's how things work they'll > > > help file JIRAs for interfaces that need to be @Public to get their > work > > > done. > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > On 07/22/2014 04:54 PM, Karthik Kambatla wrote: > > > > > >> Hi devs > > >> > > >> As you might have noticed, we have several classes and methods in them > > >> that > > >> are not annotated at all. This is seldom intentional. Avoiding > > >> incompatible > > >> changes to all these classes can be considerable baggage. > > >> > > >> I was wondering if we should add an explicit disclaimer in our > > >> compatibility guide that says, "Classes without annotations are to > > >> considered @Private" > > >> > > >> For methods, is it reasonable to say - "Class members without specific > > >> annotations inherit the annotations of the class"? > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> Karthik > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately > and delete it from your system. Thank You. >
