commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <GGreg...@seagullsoftware.com>
Subject RE: [VFS] Analysis of binary compatibility breaks between 1.0 and 2.0; release strategy
Date Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:25:46 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 06:35
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VFS] Analysis of binary compatibility breaks between 1.0 and
> 2.0; release strategy
> 
> 
> On Nov 17, 2010, at 2:54 AM, sebb wrote:
> 
> > On 17 November 2010 07:17, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> I'm not suggesting we change these. Since we are adopting Java 5 I would
> prefer to change these now and move forward.
> >
> > To change or not to change? Sorry, cannot understand the last paragraph.
> >
> 
> Sorry I wasn't clear.
> 
> My feeling is that if we are upgrading to Java 5 then we should do it
> correctly. Go ahead and break compatibility where required. In that view the
> changes done to the Comparables were done correctly.  I suspect they will
> cause very few problems in any case.  Since we have changed the package name
> and artifactId I just wouldn't worry about it.
> 
> I agree we should remove the deprecated APIs - there don't appear to be many
> of them - although I do find myself wondering why in AbstractFileObject
> doSetLastModifiedTime was deprecated in favor of doSetLastModTime. I actually
> prefer the former name.

+1

> 
> Ralph


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message