Yep, I've got all that pending in a commit, will commit tomorrow morning. Should we put a note in the ChangeLog about it?
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:21 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > > -- ........ Jon Moore
