On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:09:50PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 01:49:29PM -0600, Brian Cameron wrote:
> > I believe the main reason the JDS team wants these interfaces to be
> > Volatile is so that other Sun groups that wish to depend on the
> > interfaces sign contracts with us. This way the JDS team can manage
> > the interfaces moving forward. The JDS team does not want other
> > teams to depend on interfaces, then get hit by a bug, and expect
> > the JDS team to fix their bugs for them.
> >
> > As has been pointed out, there is no reason other teams can't work
> > directly with the SQLite project to make it work for their needs.
> > If they have a contract in place with the JDS team, then they can
> > expect our team to work with them to help avoid problems on upgrade.
>
> Making this Volatile does not achieve what you describe (causing others
> to have to sign contracts with the JDS team).
Ah, no, that's wrong. The taxonomy says:
Sun products should consider Volatile interfaces as equivalent to
Consolidation Private. A contract is required for use of these
interfaces outside of the supplying consolidation.
It would still, however, save work to mark the stable parts of the API
as Uncommitted.
Nico
--
