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