Hi. > Some compiled client code can break if it extends the method, and > returns something which is a BivariateRealFunction, but not a > BicubicSplineInterpolatingFunction. > Since the super class method contract has changed, the client code > does not respect the contract (return > BicubicSplineInterpolatingFunction) any longer. > Hence the break.
Thanks for the explanation. OK. So there is indeed an incompatible change between 2.1 and current (to become 2.2). Is this really a problem? I mean, it could be seen as a bug fix (i.e. it was a mistake to return the super-class type)! Does the policy forbid such kind of fixes even if prevents the development of CM code that depends on these fixes? As I've already proposed for another compatibility breaking fix, can't we set up a poll on the "user" ML in order to assess the *real* damage that the modification will entail? Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
