Internal API passed to extension init function?

[bennadel]

Based on my logging, I'm seeing that the init() function that can be used in an extension receives the private, internal API used by HTMX. Wouldn't this be dangerous to expose to "user land"? This would, in theory, make just about every change to the library, internal or external, a "breaking change". Or, is this the intent? That the entirety of the HTMX implementation is considered "public"?

I just want to fully understand the implications before I possibly use the apiRef passed to init().

[Telroshan]

Not all internal functions are exposed to the private API though, but you're right, any change to those functions would be a breaking change.
In that matter, we always make sure to not introduce any breaking changes to these functions, we've had several cases where we added new features to them, and those were added as a new, optional parameter for example, so that no existing extensions would not break because of it.
So, rest assured, we strive to not break anything regarding the private API along releases either.

These functions are exposed in the private API because they are useful, we want to give htmx developers the flexibility they might need to fit their specific usecases. We also want to encourage them using extensions for custom behaviors, hence why we have this private API passed to extensions, as opposed to the public API available globally at all times.

Hope this helps!

[bennadel]

Perfect, that's all I needed to hear! I'm particularly interested in using getClosestAttributeValue() so that I can grab inherited attributes for an extension. Thank you, as always.