On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:19 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > PING. > > If I don't hear any response in the next few days I will revert. >
Would it be helpful to post a link to what a -1 on a commit means as a refresher? Gary > On 3 September 2015 at 14:43, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > @dbros...@apache.org > > > > This commit still needs to be reverted please. > > > > Whilst it makes calling clone slightly easier, it breaks binary and > > source compatibility. > > The downsides are not worth the convenience. > > > > On 24 August 2015 at 11:18, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The clone method and Cloneable interface should be treated with > >> caution [1], so I don't think it makes sense to make it easier to use. > >> > >> I would rather see copy methods allied to a suitable interface. > >> > >> [1] http://my.safaribooksonline.com/9780137150021/ch03lev1sec4 > >> > >> On 24 August 2015 at 11:07, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 24 August 2015 at 10:57, Jörg Schaible < > joerg.schai...@swisspost.com> wrote: > >>>> Hi Sebb, > >>>> > >>>> sebb wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 24 August 2015 at 08:04, Jörg Schaible < > joerg.schai...@swisspost.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Sebb, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> sebb wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 23 August 2015 at 23:19, <dbros...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Author: dbrosius > >>>>>>>> Date: Sun Aug 23 22:19:04 2015 > >>>>>>>> New Revision: 1697267 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1697267 > >>>>>>>> Log: > >>>>>>>> remove the need for casting at the clone() call site > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -1 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I was hoping to reduce the number of API changes to the minimum, > so we > >>>>>>> can potentially release a > >>>>>>> version that is binary compatible with 5.2. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Are you sure that this is binary incompatible? IIRC it is safe to > adjust > >>>>>> the return type of clone here. > >>>>> > >>>>> It's not binary compatible because the return type is part of the > >>>>> method signature. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think it may well be source compatible. > >>>> > >>>> No, because the exception is no longer thrown (error depends on the > compiler > >>>> settings) > >>> > >>> Huh? The commit did not change the throws clauses (there were none) > >>> > >>>> or if someone has overloaded the method with return type Object. > >>> > >>> Here I agree. > >>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Jörg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
