axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dustin Amrhein <>
Subject Re: SVN Commit 671127
Date Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:21:02 GMT

Like I said, I see that the constructor was analogous to a no-arg constructor, but from an
API standpoint it could cause issues. I don't think it is a huge deal that we add this one
back, but I just wanted to request that we use deprecation in future changes like these. Thanks!

--- On Wed, 6/25/08, Deepal jayasinghe <> wrote:
From: Deepal jayasinghe <>
Subject: Re: SVN Commit 671127
Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 11:37 PM

Hi Dustin ,
I agree with you that removing the constructor is wrong , however that 
one is misleading. Thought it takes the ConfigurationContext it does 
nothing , and other thing is all the methods in Axis2 engine is statics 
, so creating a instance make no sense to me.

If you want I can add the constructor back ?

> In SVN commit 671127 the following public constructor to the 
> AxisEngine was removed:
> public AxisEngine(ConfigurationContext configContext) {}
> I realize this constructor was an empty constructor, and it did 
> nothing with the supplied ConfigurationContext argument, but it was 
> still a public constructor. In the future, would it be possible that 
> we deprecate such constructors/methods so that consumers of Axis2 have 
> time to appropriately react?
> Regards,
> Dustin Amrhein


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message