[rrd-developers] it exposes too much ...

[Florian Forster]

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 06:07:42PM +0200, Tobi Oetiker wrote:
> So how about this. We export the symbols but do NOT put them in rrd.h.
> this means that if someone wants to code, using them, it will work,
> but it will also mean that they have to use our private headers for
> compilation, makeing it clear that there is not guarantee for support
> in future versions ...

I think undocumented (i. e. not in the header file) features (i. e.
exported symbols) are the devil's approach to software development.
Not documenting features essentially means that _less_ people use them,
but you're stuck with the very same problems as if everybody used them.

So, for versions 1.[23] I'd favor one of these two options:
- Fully support those functions. This means to export and document those
  functions and to increase the SONAME if 1.4 removes/changes the
  functions/interface.
  Not the worst solution imho: People who used (so far undocumented!)
  functions will have to adapt their code for 1.4, but that's progress
  and accounted for by the SONAME bump.
- Don't export these functions at all. This will break code using
  undocumented features _now_ (instead of when 1.4 is released). Hit
  everyone who comes whining over the head with something smelly. Then
  ask them what they need(ed) the functions for and make sure your new
  interface can handle those cases. Maybe someone even ports the changes
  back to 1.3..?

Just my $.02, but I'd hate to see you make the same mistake Microsoft
has been doing for years.. ;)

Regards,
-octo
-- 
Florian octo Forster
Hacker in training
GnuPG: 0x91523C3D
http://verplant.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.oetiker.ch/pipermail/rrd-developers/attachments/20080610/f7a2c555/attachment-0001.bin