Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • You can't have "breaking changes" if you don't introduce the extra interface in the first place. Also, you're proposing technical interfaces here. That means the presentation, persistence and the "logic" is broken into separate pieces. Now what are the chances that a new feature will only touch exactly one of those? Commented May 19, 2022 at 8:43
  • @RobertBräutigam: (1) When a class' implementation changes (e.g. method signature), that also constitutes a breaking change, regardless of having an interface that more explicitly describes these method signatures or not. (2) Quite frankly, I'm tired of having this same discussion with you over and over. You clearly have a different approach to what is commonly discussed/approached in the field of OOP and class design. Different strokes for different folks, and that's all fine, but I'm tired of repeating the same conversation over and over. Not everything should devolve into a purism debate. Commented May 19, 2022 at 10:23
  • @RobertBräutigam: Sidestepping the same old discussion though, the issue is not so much with the implementation of new features but rather the changes made to existing features. This change might be introduced because the old code needs to be compatible with some new feature, but this is just one of many possible reasons. You'll also notice that in the last section I specifically point out that a new feature which only introduces an expansion to an existing interface is out of scope for a discussion on breaking changes for consumers. Commented May 19, 2022 at 10:28