[qmtest] API enhancements

[Mark Mitchell]

Stefan Seefeld wrote:

> hi there,
>
> now that the release is out, may I bring up the issue
> of API enhancements in general and my suggested change
> for field attributes in extensions in particular ?

Yes, you may. :-)

> Did anybody review it ? Beside breaking the attribute
> ordering (which, according to Nathaniel, didn't follow
> any specific requirement anyways) the change is fully
> backward compatible, yet it provides a more compact
> and clean way for declaring new extensions.

I looked briefly at the patch, but not in terribly much detail.  If you 
will re-forward it to me, or point me at the URL on the online archives, 
I will take a harder look.  We should definitely update the 
documentation to explain how to use the new technique if we decide to 
adopt it; I can't remember if your patch did that or not.

Full backwards compatible is an important criteria for test classes, but 
if you've met that, that's not an issue.  For database classes, we can 
be a little more flexible; the API there is not quite as settled, and we 
know there are probably going to be some changes there.

> And, to put it into a broader context: what API
> change requests would be acceptable for you ? Only
> bug fixes ? Or some design cleanup, too ?

Design cleanup is OK, but backwards compatibility is paramound, and we 
do have a heavy weight on the side of if-it-aint't-broken-don't-fix-it 
in that any change does introduce risk.

As I mentioned before, we'd be particularly excited about new test 
classes; that's what we think would be the best use of major effort.  
But, it's not up to me to tell you how to spend your time, and we'll be 
very grateful for whatever you contribute!

Best,

-- 

Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark at codesourcery.com