On 17 November 2010 19:53, Luc Maisonobe <luc.maison...@free.fr> wrote: > Le 17/11/2010 13:48, Phil Steitz a écrit : >> On 11/16/10 7:10 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> I think this transition is the smoother path for our users. Do you >>>>>> think >>>>>> this change is the way to go ? >>>>> >>>>> -0 >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>>> >>>>> My first impression is that it is a lot of changes for 2.2 without any >>>>> benefit when users will switch to 3.0; they will still have to scan >>>>> their >>>>> code for all the exceptions that will have disappeared. >>>> >>>> Won't the deprecations take care of that? >>> >>> I didn't mean that they have to scan "manually", just that they will >>> have to >>> make the same change in 3.0 as they would in 2.2 (not more, not less >>> work). >>> Hence, I see no benefit in breaking the "no compatibility breaking" >>> rule in >>> 2.2. >> >> I think what Luc is suggesting is that by introducing MathUserException >> in 2.2 without a material compatibility break (i.e. nothing that would >> actually break any 2.1 code) we could set users to start doing this work >> incrementally before 3.0 is released. That seems like a good idea to me >> IIUC what the impacts are. > > You are right, this is exactly what I try to do. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> In 3.0 it will clear that they *have* to do it while, in 2.2, you would >>>>> have to explain to users that it's better that they do it but that it >>>>> will still work if they don't... And they will probably say: "If it >>>>> ain't >>>>> broken, I won't fix it." ;-) >>>> >>>> However, deprecation warnings are a strong hint that failure is >>>> imminent, and they may wish to prepare for the change. >>> >>> Yes. We should advertise the list of exceptions that are going to be >>> replaced by "MathUserException" when users switch 3.0, by deprecating >>> them in 2.2. >>> The preparation is to have a perl (or sed or ...) script ready. >>> >> I think we all agree on the deprecations. I understand your view, >> Gilles, that Luc's suggestion does not reduce work for those upgrading >> to 3.0; but don't you agree it would be helpful for them to be able to >> start - even just with new code they are developing - using the new user >> exception, assuming we can introduce it in 2.2 without breaking anything? >> >> Luc / Sebb - can you see any real backward compat issue? Would this >> change force a recompile? > > I don't think a recompile should be needed because the new exceptions > going out of the complete integration algorithm are now unchecked, and > in fact since the current exception are checked exception, existing user > code probably already catches them.
Should be easy enough to check with some actual source. > Luc > >> >> Phil >>> >>> Best, >>> Gilles >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
