Hi. > > I think that the suggestion is to preserve the old signatures in 3.0, but > > have them not only be deprecated but also throw an error. This is an > > incompatible change that can't really be done in a point release. Simply > > removing the old signatures makes it harder to track down the problem. > > Preserving the old signatures for error trapping only allows precise error > > feedback of the form "We told you not to do this in 2.2, now we mean it!". > > This is not what I had in mind, but it's better!
Well, this is what I had proposed... > > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Gilles Sadowski < > > gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > > > >>>> In order to avoid nasty surprises, what about having these "old" > >>>> constructors deprecated and throw a "MathUnsupportedOperationException" > >> in > >>>> 3.0 and remove them in 3.x? [This is an incompatible change but the > >>>> exception throwing will make it sure that nobody can actually depend on > >> this > >>>> constructor.] To which, Luc answered: > >>> No, we can deprecate them as early as 2.2 and remove them in 3.0, just > >>> as the other changes we already did. Which was the proposal which I didn't understand. > [...] Best regards, Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
