Leo Sutic wrote:
>
>
>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>>Leo Sutic wrote:
>>
>>I would really like you to remove your -1 -
>>because if we don't do this it means conveying the message that we
>>don't have a real position - pople will continue to write new code
>>using ComponentManger - and that's bad.
>>
>>
>
>If you have considered the cost of this change in terms of perceived
>API stability and found it lower than the cost of having people use
>CM, then I have nothing more to say and I remove my -1.
>
>But it seems unnecessary to deprecate a set of interfaces that will be
>with us for the forseeable future just because we consider it not as
>elegant as another set.
>
>/LS
>
I think it would be appropriate to include in the Javadoc an explination
about the deprecation action and its relationship to the 4.X lifetime.
The deprecation action specifically addresses an unnecessary restriction
introduced by the Component marker interface. Given deprecation of
Component in favour of java.lang.Object, we imply deprication of
ComponentManager, Composable, ComponentException and ComponentSelector.
In each case a replacement is provided (ServiceManager, Serviceable,
ServiceException and ServiceLocator). A javadoc description should
include these details - together with a summary of the benefits
introduced by this action. The javadoc should also be very clear that
the component family of interfaces will be around for the life of 4.X.
I could write something up along these lines and include it in the
framework/component package.html.
Steve.
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
