Re: SAF 1.3.x and legacy RequestProcessor

2006-05-05 Thread Greg Reddin
On May 5, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: For me the ideal end point is just a single RP and it seems cleaner to have it called RP than CRP. That would be my preference, but if others disagree and think that getting there is a PITA - its not a big deal. I'd be in favor of this approa

Re: SAF 1.3.x and legacy RequestProcessor

2006-05-05 Thread Niall Pemberton
On 5/5/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Its probably academic, but since CRP extends RP then it seems >incorrect to deprecate the whole class with a view to removing in the >future. Wouldn't it be more correct to deprecate all the protected >methods (e.g. processActionCreate(), proces