-
From time to time, we deprecate APIs in Windows. These APIs follow a lifecycle of notification then removal. Occasionally the metadata (like headers or exports) remains behind but the implementation becomes inert (does nothing, returns "not implemented", etc.) WinRT types have a Some feature requests:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 3 comments 2 replies
-
Following on from the discussion at #388 (comment), I would much prefer surfacing things like deprecated attributes than removing APIs from the metadata completely. What support is there for marking Win32 and COM APIs as deprecated today in the headers? Is this something we could scrape? Or would we have to artificially inject the attribute into the metadata? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yes, I would be in favor of using an attribute as that is consistent with WinRT metadata. Language projections can then decide what level of support to provide. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Headers are capable of generating deprecation warnings on usage, I've seen that plenty in the VC runtime headers, but don't know how much it is used in the Windows SDK headers. Manual deprecation or deprecation from docs makes me a bit worried about "political" deprecation affecting accessibility of APIs to developers, things have been "deprecated" in the past to push the new shiny API. Some of these deprecations seem to have been reverted so I don't really know how bad the current state is, I've stopped trusting the docs marking something as "deprecated". (Some things have been deprecated for over a decade and never went away.) If its usable from the SDK without warnings it should be usable without warnings from projections. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Yes, I would be in favor of using an attribute as that is consistent with WinRT metadata. Language projections can then decide what level of support to provide.