Paul Hammant wrote:
Berin,
Either way the effect is the same.
Should I have the ability to change a lifecycle interface without it
being
concidered backwards incompatible.
Sorry dude, I'm still not quite there. It is not so much of a
declaration as an ambiguity. This from me being the worst master of the
English language in this mail list.
Is the declaration? : We will try not change any of the lifecycle
methods from now on for Components. If we do, we *will* maintain
backwards compatibility.
I am saying that *strict* backwards compatibility would not allow me to
change the implementation of a Component from Loggable to LogEnabled.
If we _relax_ that requirement so that only the role interface and
contracts surrounding it must remain backwards compatible, then I could
change Loggable to LogEnabled. I would also be able to later add
Initializable, or remove Contextualizable.
For Components, the lifecycle interfaces are supposed to be different
concerns.
so the vote is: Do we enforce *strict* backwards compatibility or *relaxed*
backwards compatibility?
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
