Component Status Indicators

Component status indicators communicate component maturity, stability, and readiness levels to consumers. These indicators help teams make informed decisions about which components to use and what expectations are appropriate. Clear status communication prevents surprises from using unstable components.

What Are Component Status Indicators

Status indicators are labels or classifications that describe where components stand in their lifecycle. Common statuses include experimental for early-stage components, beta for components approaching stability, stable for production-ready components, and deprecated for components scheduled for removal.

Status indicators set expectations. Experimental components may change significantly without migration support. Stable components commit to backwards compatibility. Deprecated components should be migrated away from. Status communication enables appropriate consumer decisions.

How Component Status Indicators Work

Status definition establishes what each status level means. Definitions should specify stability commitments, change notification expectations, support levels, and recommended usage. Clear definitions enable consistent interpretation.

Assignment criteria determine how components receive status. What makes a component stable? What triggers deprecation? Criteria ensure consistent status assignment across components.

Status display surfaces indicators where consumers will see them. Documentation badges show status in component docs. IDE integrations can display status in autocomplete. Console warnings for unstable components alert during development. Multiple display points ensure visibility.

Transition processes move components between statuses. Promotion from experimental to stable follows defined criteria. Deprecation initiates through governance processes. Transitions should be documented and communicated.

Communication informs consumers of status and transitions. Status changes appear in release notes. Deprecation warnings provide advance notice. Status rationale explains why components have current status.

Key Considerations

• Status should accurately reflect component reality; misleading status erodes trust
• Too many status levels create confusion; keep the system simple
• Status commitments must be honored to maintain meaning
• Status display should be prominent enough to notice
• Status transitions deserve appropriate communication

Common Questions

What status levels should design systems define?

Common status levels include experimental for early components without stability guarantees, beta for maturing components that may change but are approaching stability, stable for production-ready components with backwards compatibility commitments, and deprecated for components scheduled for removal. Some systems add draft for very early work or maintenance for components receiving only critical fixes. The right levels depend on organizational needs; simpler systems with fewer levels are often clearer.

How should consumers factor status into adoption decisions?

Status should inform risk assessment. Stable components are appropriate for critical production use with confidence in support and compatibility. Beta components suit non-critical use where early access benefits outweigh change risk. Experimental components fit exploration and prototyping where instability is acceptable. Deprecated components should be avoided for new usage and prioritized for migration. Consumer risk tolerance, use case criticality, and migration capacity should all factor into adoption decisions alongside status.

Summary

Component status indicators communicate maturity through defined status levels with clear meanings, assignment criteria for consistent application, display in documentation and development tools, transition processes for promotion and deprecation, and communication informing consumers of status changes. Common levels include experimental, beta, stable, and deprecated. Consumers should factor status into adoption decisions based on risk tolerance and use case criticality.