On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> +1 to rename getShortClassName to getSimpleName; sitting on top of > the > >> >> JDK getSimpleName and providing null safety and whatever other > >> >> features are needed (for example array encoding). > >> > > >> > You must mean deprecate getShortClassName (to remove in 4.0) and add > >> > getSimpleName. Right? > >> > >> Nope. Remove getShortClassName and add getSimpleName. We're not > >> released yet so we can (and should) still make backwards compat > >> changes. > >> > >> Hen > > > > getShortClassName is in 2.6. > > So? It can be removed in 3.0 if it's pointless and replaced by > getSimpleName. > Yes, that's true. I thought it would be polite to deprecate the method first but I suppose there is no rule that says we have to do it that way. I was just surprised by methods disappearing in WSS4J 1.6 from 1.5.x without deprecation in 1.5.x. Because major releases can break things, I now understand it is permitted to do this kind of change. We now two new methods: org.apache.commons.lang3.ClassUtils.getSimpleName(Class<?>) org.apache.commons.lang3.ClassUtils.getSimpleName(Object, String) Which should replace: getShortClassName(Class<?>) getShortClassName(Object, String) The question is, what do we do about: org.apache.commons.lang3.ClassUtils.getShortClassName(String) Changing the impl to call getSimpleName(Class<?>) with the result of Class.forName() smells wrong. Gary Gary > > Hen > -- Thank you, Gary http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ http://garygregory.com/ http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
