On 11 January 2011 20:43, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 20:14 +0000, Moore, Jonathan wrote: >> Well, it didn't take me that long to do, and if we aren't just going to >> remove the deprecated method, I wanted to be able to sleep at night. :) >> >> If we don't want to include code like this then I think we should just >> remove the deprecated method, because even if we remain binary >> backwards-compatible for one of these folks, the caching module won't work >> for them properly (they'll get UnsupportedOperationExceptions) and they'll >> have to upgrade to the new API anyway. I'd rather have that discovery >> happen for them at compile time than at runtime, to be frank. >> >> So I guess I'm coming around to: I think we should remove this method >> which only appeared publicly in a beta release and for which I think there >> is a high probability there are exactly zero people who will actually have >> stuff break if we remove it.
+1 >> > > That is a lot of unnecessary code. Let's just remove it along with the > deprecated method, and move on. There's also a corresponding deprecated ctor. Also the variantURIs private field. > Oleg > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
