Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of phil.steitz@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.212.43 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=tLhZn+mWEB3z1twdVd5zYdFgw1jvxMVExjWLg0wMhqNsMxf+3BPUr0bldzHTbqGQs+
         gS2pBVYH3iAambbMGM6hBweLfPQvNbH0rSf1EaAoTYINOiv8yeGoKsErgw5Ap79d41U3
         KLj58dPbnQzGVlkIJJfSt6kkojicIq9hAyeEw=
Message-ID: <4CE3CF2A.3070903@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:48:42 -0500
From: Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [math] preparing smooth interface upgrade for users
References: <4CE2EEF4.2030204@free.fr>
 <20101116231944.GL10411@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
 <AANLkTimuDbTDCFSTf+h2sEk3qxyvFLMbPN6Y=5=3og-y@mail.gmail.com>
 <20101117001036.GM10411@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
In-Reply-To: <20101117001036.GM10411@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 11/16/10 7:10 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> I think this transition is the smoother path for our users. Do you think
>>>> this change is the way to go ?
>>>
>>> -0
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>
>>> My first impression is that it is a lot of changes for 2.2 without any
>>> benefit when users will switch to 3.0; they will still have to scan their
>>> code for all the exceptions that will have disappeared.
>>
>> Won't the deprecations take care of that?
>
> I didn't mean that they have to scan "manually", just that they will have to
> make the same change in 3.0 as they would in 2.2 (not more, not less work).
> Hence, I see no benefit in breaking the "no compatibility breaking" rule in
> 2.2.

I think what Luc is suggesting is that by introducing 
MathUserException in 2.2 without a material compatibility break 
(i.e. nothing that would actually break any 2.1 code) we could set 
users to start doing this work incrementally before 3.0 is released. 
  That seems like a good idea to me IIUC what the impacts are.

>
>>
>>> In 3.0 it will clear that they *have* to do it while, in 2.2, you would
>>> have to explain to users that it's better that they do it but that it
>>> will still work if they don't... And they will probably say: "If it ain't
>>> broken, I won't fix it." ;-)
>>
>> However, deprecation warnings are a strong hint that failure is
>> imminent, and they may wish to prepare for the change.
>
> Yes. We should advertise the list of exceptions that are going to be
> replaced by "MathUserException" when users switch 3.0, by deprecating
> them in 2.2.
> The preparation is to have a perl (or sed or ...) script ready.
>
I think we all agree on the deprecations.  I understand your view, 
Gilles, that Luc's suggestion does not reduce work for those 
upgrading to 3.0; but don't you agree it would be helpful for them 
to be able to start - even just with new code they are developing - 
using the new user exception, assuming we can introduce it in 2.2 
without breaking anything?

Luc / Sebb - can you see any real backward compat issue?  Would this 
change force a recompile?

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


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