Do we want to go with Sebastian's suggestion here, or discuss further? I wouldn't call the matter resolved, and it does indeed look a bit irritating to see deprecation warnings in [lang]'s *own* code.
Matt On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:00 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 October 2013 20:55, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 21 October 2013 20:28, 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? > >> > >> That would work for me. > >> > >> What would? > > "indicate that we plan to remove this code in 4.0" > > > > > > >> > Hen > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > >> >
