Non-public public functions: Conventions for identifying?
eli at media.berkeley.edu
Mon Nov 8 18:34:30 UTC 2010
I wonder if some of these are functions that we surfaced so that we could leverage them for unit tests.
On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Colin Clark wrote:
> Hi Anastasia,
> On 2010-11-08, at 10:26 AM, Cheetham, Anastasia wrote:
>> At the dev meeting last week, we discussed the fact that there are a number of functions in the framework (and in some components) that are in the public namespace but which are not really intended for use by the general public, and which hence probably shouldn't have official documentation.
>> We discussed how we could identify these functions, so that the poor sod writing the documentation doesn't waste time writing things that are best left unsaid. Options included special naming conventions and an agreed-upon comment. The general consensus of those at the dev meeting was a preference for an agreed-upon comment (and NOT a special naming convention), but we wanted to throw it out to the list before we implement it.
> I missed the conversation last week, so apologies for asking a question that you no doubt covered during the meeting. Can we identify the various reasons why any of these functions are public but "not intended for the general public?" I imagine the rationale might include functions that are "sneak peek" and subject to change in future releases, but are there any other motivations for making them public but not documenting them?
> Colin Clark
> Technical Lead, Fluid Project
> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
> see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
manager of user experience
user interaction developer
ETS, UC Berkeley
"Do not solve the problem that’s asked of you. It’s almost always the wrong problem."
- Don Norman
More information about the fluid-work