commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1532011 - in /commons/proper/lang/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/lang3: ArrayUtils.java ObjectUtils.java
Date Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:39:20 GMT
Do we want to go with Sebastian's suggestion here, or discuss further?  I
wouldn't call the matter resolved, and it does indeed look a bit irritating
to see deprecation warnings in [lang]'s *own* code.

Matt


On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:00 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22 October 2013 20:55, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 21 October 2013 20:28, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:29 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 21 October 2013 11:52, Benedikt Ritter <beneritter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Send from my mobile device
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Am 21.10.2013 um 03:46 schrieb sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> On 20 October 2013 15:03, Benedikt Ritter <britter@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> I agree. If we don't deprecate it now, and agree to release
the
> next
> >> >> major
> >> >> >>> version targeting Java 7, we would remove those methods
without
> ever
> >> >> >>> mentioning it before.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's not how I see it working.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I think the deprecations should be added once the code requires
a
> >> >> >> minimum of Java 7.
> >> >> >> Later on, the deprecated methods are removed if required (they
> could
> >> be
> >> >> left).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In any case, removal of the deprecated methods is not binary
> >> >> >> compatible, so new package/Maven coords are needed.
> >> >> >> In which case, it's not really a problem that the methods
are not
> >> >> >> deprecated first.
> >> >> >> It would be sufficient to note the replacements in the release
> notes.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Deprecation is only useful to users of a library if there
is a
> >> >> >> replacement they can use.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There is a replacement as Hen has pointed out. What you're saying
> is
> >> >> that the replacement has to be part of the library, right?
> >> >>
> >> >> Not necessarily, the replacement could be part of standard Java
> classes.
> >> >>
> >> >> But I don't think it's right to require users to migrate to a later
> >> >> version of Java than is required by the library itself in order to
> >> >> avoid the deprecation warning.
> >> >>
> >> >> And as I already wrote, it's important that deprecation warnings are
> >> >> removed (not suppressed) in the library itself.
> >> >> That is necessary to show that the deprecation makes sense.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What's your solution, Sebb, to indicate that we plan to remove this
> code
> >> in
> >> > 4.0?
> >>
> >> That would work for me.
> >>
> >> What would?
>
> "indicate that we plan to remove this code in 4.0"
>
> >
> >
> >> > Hen
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message