DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31553>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31553 [betwixt][Patch] PropertySuppressionStrategy.suppressProperty include the bean containing the property [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-06 21:41 ------- I've commit a variation upon your theme. The only substantive difference is that I think that the right class to take is the class of the bean (rather than that of the bean info which may potential be a superclass or superinterface). I believe that this should have no detrimental side effects but should be simpler for users to understand. Please reopen if I've overlooked anything... Some comments (in no particular order): 1. Attachments are good. 2. I'm very, very keen on preserving backwards compatibility. The commons guidelines say code which has been released should be deprecated before being incompatibly modified but are silent about development code. In Betwixt, we've tried to preserve compatibility even when the code has never been released but, in this case the code has only just been committed and so modifying the interface now seems best. 3. It did consider this but couldn't think of a good use case. Should probably have thought a little longer... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
