Re: Query.setRefreshingObjects(boolean)

From: Mike Kienenberger (mkienen..mail.com)
Date: Mon May 05 2008 - 17:00:31 EDT

  • Next message: Scott Anderson: "RE: Specifying PK when creating a new object in DB generated PK mode"

    Just to reiterate, I see no problem with axing it entirely. I don't
    think we have to nicely deprecate everything since we're now in 3.0
    and it's marked unstable.

    However, we should make the need for change obvious. I don't see
    much benefit to providing a binary-compatible method API that does
    nothing. As an end-user, I want to see things either work as they
    always worked, or be given a clear unavoidable indication that work is
    required on my part to fix it.

    Another possibility is to..eprecate the method and have it
    unconditionally throw a RuntimeException telling the developer to
    rewrite using query cache options.

    On 5/5/08, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    > Andrus
    >
    >
    > 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 like
    > > > 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
    > rather
    > > > > > 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.
    > > > >
    > > > > Andrus
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon May 05 2008 - 17:07:26 EDT