Hi
craig,
I’m
also concerned
with that.
As
far as I understand, our
requirement is to have an API freeze on M6 and, if we want to be a 1.0,
we need
to have a “closed” api. But we don’t need to be 1.0 to be on
the train. We are proposing that because it seems to be a good timing
for MTJ
(but we can re-discuss that)
On
the API review, what
we can do if to focus on some parts that are more important and leave
the rest of
the API as internal (that’s what eclipse suggests). This would reduce
the
effort to review and have all inputs. On the future we can start to
discuss
about moving some of the internal apis to be public.
On
the proposal we already
tried to do something like that
Do
you think this make
sense?
J
gep
For clarification, what are the API
requirements for Galileo release?
I'm very concerned with trying to complete API's in such a short
period.
I'm also concerned about declaring the API's "complete" without
enough time to get lots of input. Do we need to be at "1.0" for
the release train? If so, how is 1.0 defined and can we declare some
of
the questionable API's as provisional until we can get more input?
On Jan 29, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Paula
Gustavo-WGP010 wrote:
Hi
MTJ,
We did an initial
analysis of
current MTJ API and presented a proposal of the possible changes that
we can
do. This proposal is documented on our wiki http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/MTJ/Discussion/Refactoring.
This is just a proposal, so feel free to suggest other possible changes.
MTJ API
freeze is on M6 (Mar/16/2009), so any change that we want to
do need to be done until that date. Since
there is not a lot of time, I would
like to propose a target date of Feb/13 to close this review process.
This
would give us time to
implement the changes after we decide which
one should be there.
We can have this
discussion here on the list.
Regards,
J
gep
_______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
