continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

[Rick Spencer]

On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 17:36 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2010, at 05:27 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 
> >Unless there is some commitment to API stability, this is actively harmful.  
> >If you are writing functions to be consumed generally, and not just within 
> >your program/module/whatever, then you have to take on some additional 
> >responsiblities.  If you don't, then whoever tries to take advantage of your 
> >code is in for a world of hurt.
> 
> Sure, but this is the "consenting adults" argument.  The thing is, the
> packages are going to be available in either case, so you're just putting an
> inconvenient sys.path hack in front of anyone who really wants to do it.

I write apps and libraries as very distinct activities. As an app
developer, my supporting libraries tend to be extremely specific to my
app in design and functionality, with no thought to external consumers
of those libraries. I also do not test any scenarios outside the scope
of my app. If I want to write a library for someone else to use, I
design for that purpose. So, as a user (as in a user of the app review
board) I would just as soon not to have the additional concern of making
my supporting libraries also have to be usable by other developers.

Cheers, Rick