Re: [DISCUSS] @Public libraries

In the initial discussion / proposal for interface annotations we decided to annotate only the very core APIs with @Public and give the libraries more freedom to evolve over time. I think we should not have a general rule for the libraries and decide this case-by-case. If you feel that Gelly is

Re: [DISCUSS] @Public libraries

I think in general annotating library methods/classes is a good idea. The question is just which APIs are going to be marked stable. In the past we've seen that we might have marked some of Flink's APIs stable too early. As a consequence we have to carry them along for quite some time (at the

Re: [DISCUSS] @Public libraries

I would be for also annotating library methods/classes. Maybe Robert has a stronger opinion on this because he introduced these annotations. On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 at 18:56 Greg Hogan wrote: > Hi all, > > Should stable APIs in Flink's CEP, ML, and Gelly libraries be annotated >

[DISCUSS] @Public libraries

Hi all, Should stable APIs in Flink's CEP, ML, and Gelly libraries be annotated @Public or restricted to use of @PublicEvolving? We would ensure that library APIs do not add restrictions to the core APIs. Libraries could use @PublicEvolving or @Internal core APIs within @Public or