axis-java-dev mailing list archives

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

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 <deepalk@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Deepal jayasinghe <deepalk@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: SVN Commit 671127
To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
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
>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Deepal
................................................................
http://blogs.deepal.org/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: axis-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org


      
Mime
View raw message