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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Deepal jayasinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: SVN Commit 671127 To: [email protected] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
