Well your comment makes sense anyway...
2013/10/21 Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > Or I could need sleep. I was on the subject of deprecating the time > package. :( > > Hen > -- http://people.apache.org/~britter/ http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter http://github.com/britter
