myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andy Schwartz" <andy.g.schwa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Trinidad] private / protected final methods in renderers
Date Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:45:35 GMT
Hey Andrew -

I think we are getting closer together, but not exactly there yet. :-)

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Andrew Robinson
<andrew.rw.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> As someone who has experience in attempting to use Trinidad, I think
>  #3 is a requirement for short term usage and #2 as the goal.

I can live with this.

>  What I mean by this is that rendereds should make an effort to expose
>  functionality even if it isn't thought through

I am not a fan of this.  If people want to put in the effort to think
through APIs that they expose on their renderers, then +1.  But big -1
from me for exposing APIs haphazardly.

>  If people do not mind being broken by new releases, why should we try
>  to prevent them from being able to do what they need to do to be able
>  to write their products?

Because:

1. No matter what is said here and now in this thread, nobody likes it
when things unexpectedly break when they pick up a new release.
2. There is another solution available.

The other solution is to open things up in response to need.  Since
there is already a clear path for dealing with missing functionality
(open an issue, submit a patch), I think we should use that.  Of
course, this means that if people go to the trouble of logging
issues/submitting patches for changes in the Renderer code base, we
have to be willing to take the time to think through/accept the
proposed changes.

Oh, and, that's not to say that if people have time to go through the
Renderers and clean up the existing contracts, we shouldn't do that
too.  Just that while doing this some level of critical thinking needs
to be applied.

Andy

Mime
View raw message