Revert if you like. I'm not sure how it breaks anything.
On 09/09/2015 01:41 PM, sebb wrote:
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
