Skip to content

Documentation: clarify API stability guarantees #597

Closed

Description

@winne42

System information

Describe the documentation issue

In the 1.0.0 release notes it is mentioned that

Starting from this version, the project will follow the TensorFlow API stability guarantees.

On the other hand, install.md reads

Caution: The TensorFlow Java API is not covered by the TensorFlow API stability guarantees.

And package-info.java also says

WARNING: The API is currently experimental and is not covered by TensorFlow API stability guarantees

Which one is it, could you please align the documentation? Thanks and have a nice weekend!

P.S.: Also https://www.tensorflow.org/jvm/install seems to point to a severely outdated version of install.md

Activity

  1. dheeraj-paliwal commented on Mar 13, 2025

    @dheeraj-paliwal

    Hello sir,
    With all respect can I try this , I guess probably I can solve the issue

  2. Craigacp commented on Apr 4, 2025

    @Craigacp
    Collaborator

    We should fix that, however it's not clear that upstream TensorFlow is itself covered by the API stability guarantees anymore given all the changes that have happened over there.

  3. sshekhar-04 commented on Jan 15, 2026

    @sshekhar-04
    Contributor

    Hi @Craigacp, @karllessard, and @mihaimaruseac — I want to step-in, to help align the documentation regarding the API stability claims.

    As @Craigacp mentioned, upstream changes make a 'blanket' stability guarantee difficult. However, the current 'Experimental' warnings in package-info.java and install.md contradict the 1.0.0 release notes and may discourage production adoption.

    My Proposal: I can submit a PR to replace the 'Experimental/Warning' labels with a nuanced stability statement. This would confirm our commitment to Java API stability while clearly noting the dependency on the upstream C API.

  4. sshekhar-04 commented on Jan 16, 2026

    @sshekhar-04
    Contributor

    Hi @Craigacp, @karllessard, and @mihaimaruseac — I have just submitted a Pull Request (PR #629 ) to resolve this.

    I followed the 'nuanced' approach we discussed, aligning the documentation with the 1.0.0 release notes while explicitly mentioning the dependency on the upstream C API to address the stability concerns. Looking forward to your feedback!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions