Mark Martin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Garrett D'Amore <gdamore at sun.com
> <mailto:gdamore at sun.com>> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure you really need to call out the public DDI interfaces
> used by the project. Apart from the weird line breaks in the
> e-mail, the opinion looks good to me.
>
>
> Garrett,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> RE: line breaks -- probably my fault. I copy/pasted from notepad on a
> Windows box.
>
> Is there any harm in leaving those interface definitions in? I can
> certainly remove that whole "Imported Interfaces" table, but I'm
> (privately) debating the value of and feasibility of a project that
> might be able to scrape some of that information out of the entire
> public caselog. In this case, that's very detailed import information
> that may get lost. Or perhaps scrapping the published caselog
> documentation has no value and automated tools to check the actual
> code/binaries would be of more value anyway.
There's no harm, that I can see, but little value either. Since the API
is public, we'd never be able to remove or change it anyway, because we
couldn't find all consumers.
In fact, we can't find such consumers anyway via case logs, since the
normal practice is not to declare public Committed APIs that are imported.
-- Garrett
