Actually I was going to do the opposite, but since we've set the
backwards compatibility bar for ourselves pretty high in the past, I
guess I am persuaded to go with deprecated-but-don't-cripple approach.
I guess that means also putting a deprecation note in the Modeler next
to refresh checkbox.
On May 5, 2008, at 11:36 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
> I'd like to second the opinion that deprecated still works (until
> removed), but is discouraged from use. I believe that is what Andrus
> intends, though, given previous API changes.
> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Mike Kienenberger
> <mkienen..mail.com> wrote:
>> I guess my problem is that to me..eprecate means "it still works
>> it used to, but it won't work in a future version and it's time for
>> you to change your code", but that's not what's going to happen here.
>> That's why if we're not really..eprecating it but crippling it, then
>> I'd recommend removing it. Giving end-users the false-hope that
>> things are working as usual isn't very nice.
>> You know the details of this particular situation better than I do,
>> though. If you don't think silently doing nothing will affect
>> expected program behavior, go for it.
>> On 5/5/08, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
>>> On May 5, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>>>> To me, that sounded like you were going to change the behavior
>>>> than just mark the method as..eprecated.
>>> I was planning to do both. Although we may decide to be gentle
>>> about it and
>>> deprecate the method, but preserve the functionality (which will
>>> put a bit
>>> of extra maintenance burden on us).
>>> I am leaning towards the first option (deprecate and stop invoking),
>>> especially since the nature of the change results in enhanced data
>>> consistency, so there won't be any unpleasant surprises.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon May 05 2008 - 16:47:50 EDT