OSJ-256, final classes, final interfaces and IdP V4

[Cantor, Scott]

On 1/5/19, 9:53 AM, "dev on behalf of Rod Widdowson" <dev-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of rdw at steadingsoftware.com> wrote:

> What do people think?

I think it's probably true that our interfaces are usually not meant to be extended, but we definitely have classes that are meant to be extended by others to do their own plugins.

Another thing we could do of course, given the relatively small number of extensions, is just not promise API compatibility for anybody deriving from our classes, period. Essentially tell people they can extend any public class but we reserve the right to add methods and doing so may require people to minitor for those changes and rename methods if they collide.

Given the small number of times we do it, we could probably track those in the release notes.

-- Scott