Remove misleading @Restricted annotation on package

[darxriggs]

A package can be annotated. BUT: No restriction is applied!

[jetersen]

I'd prefer if the API was moved to a separate plugin or we found a way to combine efforts working on an existing API library

[darxriggs]

I also opened this issue jenkinsci/lib-access-modifier#19.

[oleg-nenashev]

+1 for a separate plugin. No opinion about this PR, I am not sure maintainers want to open API

[stale]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[oleg-nenashev]

Ping @Casz for the final decision

[jetersen]

🤷‍♂️

[darxriggs]

Maybe I missed to add enough information. Seeing your comments I am not sure if the goal of this pull request was fully understood. At least I did not completely understand your comments. So let me try again.

• The package-info.java file was added in 41b4d13 only to provide the @Restricted(NoExternalUse.class) annotation on the com.cloudbees.jenkins.plugins.bitbucket.api package.
• Doing so has no effect at all or none that I am aware of.
• It's still possible to use this plugin as a dependency of another plugin and to create an instance of a class inside the mentioned package - for example new BitbucketException("message").
• Therefore I removed package-info.java to get rid of the confusion.

In addition I am asking myself why was the api be restricted in the first place. That's the whole idea of an api to be the interface that can be used. Maybe I am missing something.

[jetersen]

As I recall this was added to avoid users depending on this plugin to only use the API.
Would be nice to create a API plugin much like
https://github.com/jenkinsci/apache-httpcomponents-client-4-api-plugin
https://github.com/jenkinsci/gitlab-api-plugin

[jetersen]

I am fine with this either way

[darxriggs]

Who is merging it?

[amuniz]

Doing so has no effect at all or none that I am aware of.

I wasn't aware of this issue in the access-modifier-checker. It should be fixed there instead of removing the restriction here.

That's the whole idea of an api to be the interface that can be used

This package is named api because it contains the harness to access Bitbucket's API, not because it is a public API itself.

I wouldn't open this for usages by other plugins, cause doing so would make the evolution of this internal part of the code much more difficult (would need to keep backward compatibility).

The right thing is to create a bitbucket-api plugin as others have already pointed out in this PR.

That's my opinion, but I let @Casz to decide as the main maintainer.

[darxriggs]

Ok now I understood what this api is about.

I added a small Javadoc to the package and annotated all classes in the package to properly restrict them from external use as originally intended.

[stale]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[stale]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.