Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 6:22 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/01/2009, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com]
> Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> > Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> >>
Note that the above breaks binary and source compatibility.
> Therefore,
> >> at the least, such changes deserve notable mentions in the release
> >> notes and often additional thought about the version number of the
> >> next release.
> >
We shouldn't create any more jar hell situations.
As far as I can tell, making these static fields final will only break
code that tries to write to the field(s).
If code merely references the field, then it will continue to compile
and run against a final-ised version of the class.
<snip/>
Yup.
Any code that writes to the fields in question is dubious at best, so
I personally don't see any problem in breaking it.
Surely "jar hell" can only happen to incorrect code in this case?
Or am I missing some subtlety here?
<snap/>
It may be possible that for some constrained usage pattern the non
final protected field may be written to, and with said constraints it
may be less dubious or not at all. I think whats being pointed out
here is that at some point a design decision was made to have a non
final protected field and its hard to say what usage implications that
has had in the wild.
Yes. And we have agreed that we do not break source or binary
compatability in .x releases, so we need to revert this and any other
change that breaks source or binary compatibility.
Phil
-Rahul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
