On 9 September 2015 at 17:57, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
By all means. > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
