RE: Query.setRefreshingObjects(boolean)

From: Scott Anderson (sanderso..irvana.com)
Date: Mon May 05 2008 - 18:14:49 EDT

  • Next message: Mike Kienenberger: "Re: Query.setRefreshingObjects(boolean)"

    > I don't see
    > much benefit to providing a binary-compatible method API that does
    > nothing.
    ...
    > Another possibility is to..eprecate the method and have it
    > unconditionally throw a RuntimeException telling the developer to
    > rewrite using query cache options.

    Adding a Throws clause to the method would change its signature, thereby
    breaking the binary compatibility of the method. It's a good idea, but
    it won't solve that problem. :)

    Regards,
    Scott

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:mkienen..mail.com]
    Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 5:01 PM
    To: use..ayenne.apache.org
    Subject: Re: Query.setRefreshingObjects(boolean)

    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 - 18:15:47 EDT