LSARC/2008/059 - SQLite

[Brian Cameron]

> I agree we would be doing that anyways.  However, without a
> contract, I am unsure how our team would be aware which other
> Consolidations might be using the interfaces.  If we declare the
> interfaces as Uncommitted, then other consolidations do not need to
> tell the JDS consolidation that they are using the interfaces.  Or
> am I wrong?
> 
> Would "Contracted Uncommitted" or something convey what we want to
> communicate?  Or perhaps we need two stability levels.  The stability
> level promised by the external project (which is probably Uncommitted)
> versus the stability level for other consolidations (which is probably
> Volatile since the JDS team would like contracts)?
> 
> Or is there a different mechanism other than contracts to keep track
> of who depends on an interface?

Note the way the JDS team handles this sort of issue for GNOME is via
"man gnome-interfaces".  Please refer to that manpage.

Note this manpage contains a handy table which specifies which
interfaces are committed versus Volatile.  The table also specifies
which interfaces are "GNOME Platform" versus "GNOME Desktop".

Above the table, the manpage highlights that GNOME Platform interfaces
have an ABI commitment from the external GNOME community, so they should
be pretty stable.  However, this text also highlights that Sun treats
some of these Platform interfaces as Volatile.  This way we communicate
both Sun's and the external community interface stability levels to
our users.

Perhaps we could do something similar in the SQLite manpage to
highlight the external communities stability level versus how
Sun classifies the interface stability level?  Would this be a good
compromise?

Brian