On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:29 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 October 2013 11:52, Benedikt Ritter <benerit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Send from my mobile device > > > >> Am 21.10.2013 um 03:46 schrieb sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: > >> > >>> On 20 October 2013 15:03, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> I agree. If we don't deprecate it now, and agree to release the next > major > >>> version targeting Java 7, we would remove those methods without ever > >>> mentioning it before. > >> > >> That's not how I see it working. > >> > >> I think the deprecations should be added once the code requires a > >> minimum of Java 7. > >> Later on, the deprecated methods are removed if required (they could be > left). > >> > >> In any case, removal of the deprecated methods is not binary > >> compatible, so new package/Maven coords are needed. > >> In which case, it's not really a problem that the methods are not > >> deprecated first. > >> It would be sufficient to note the replacements in the release notes. > >> > >> Deprecation is only useful to users of a library if there is a > >> replacement they can use. > > > > There is a replacement as Hen has pointed out. What you're saying is > that the replacement has to be part of the library, right? > > Not necessarily, the replacement could be part of standard Java classes. > > But I don't think it's right to require users to migrate to a later > version of Java than is required by the library itself in order to > avoid the deprecation warning. > > And as I already wrote, it's important that deprecation warnings are > removed (not suppressed) in the library itself. > That is necessary to show that the deprecation makes sense.
What's your solution, Sebb, to indicate that we plan to remove this code in 4.0? Hen
