On 8 sept. 2010, at 18:23, Steve Ebersole wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 18:05 +0200, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >> On 8 sept. 2010, at 10:35, Hardy Ferentschik wrote: >> >>> - So far I haven't renamed any package names. This has the advantage our >>> existing users don't have to change their code. >>> Does it make sense to rename the packages? >> >> That's the big question to me. Feedback welcome. I could go either way. >> Pro: existing users don't have to change them >> Con: >> - we steal Solr's package which could conflict with people using Solr + >> HSearch >> - if we do a Solr integration one day (floating idea), we will have to do >> something in the area > > The general approach I like is to deprecate[1] the existing > classes/interfaces and "gut them" into classes/interfaces in the new > package, having the originals extend the newly packaged ones. > > ymmv > > [1] I prefer marking the stuff as @Deprecated as well adding log > warnings, as appropriate, in their constructors to let users know. This > lets users update/migrate at their "leisure" to an extent while still > being able to try out your latest/greatest. >
Yes the annoying part is that this piece of code is not in our hands, It's the Solr APIs, so we can't deprecate them. _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
