ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <cost...@covalent.net>
Subject RE: Speaking of deprecation...
Date Fri, 08 Feb 2002 18:58:46 GMT
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Magesh Umasankar wrote:

> > I agree with Bruce. Documentation should reflect
> > the code.  If a feature is in the code, it should
> > be in the documentation.  If a feature is deprecated
> > in the code, it should be marked as deprecated in
> > the documentation but it should still be described.
>
> OK, though I would like to somehow strongly discourage
> use of deprecated features...

As usual, I have a different opinion on the issue - I would
like to somehow strongly discourage the use of
deprecation !

Removing a feature from documentation is IMHO even worse than
removing it from the code - while I can accept that some
features were 'bad' and shouldn't be supported ( for very
good reasons, like 'we prefer a different name for this
attribute' ), they should remain in the documentation
with the 'deprecated' mark and maybe a justification
for the reason it was deprecated and who made the decision
and when.

I really _hate_ the 'deprecated' message in ant. Especially when it's
because someone has a different taste and doesn't like the old name.

So I'm -1 on removing deprecated freatures from docs,
the same as I'm -1 on removing deprecated features without
a very solid reason ( like that for Thread.stop() ).

JDK1.4 is still backward compatible with JDK1.1, including
a lot of stuff that's far worse than 'licence versus license'
naming preferences. If you have a problem a feature, say -1 when
it is added or before the release. Or before it is documented.


Costin





--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message