On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Maarten Bosteels wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Steve Ulrich wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Julien Vermillard wrote >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:37:57 +0200 >>>>>> Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Julien Vermillard wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I propose : >>>>>>>> void write(..) as default >>>>>>>> and a >>>>>>>> WriteFuture writeWithFuture(..); >>>>>>>> or something else if someone got a better idea because I'm not sure >>>>>>>> to have the best wording here ;) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WDYT ? >>>>>>>> Julien >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not simply >>>>>>> >>>>>>> void write( ... ) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WriteFuture writeFuture( ... ) ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> damn I'm an idiot ;) how I can missed this solution. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> If you don't want to break backward compatibility, perhaps something >>>>> like: >>>>> WriteFuture write(...) >>>>> void writeAndForget(...) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> We are targeting a 2.0 release, any version before a RC may be changed. >>>> But >>>> in order to avoid being stoned by users :), I would suggest to @deprecate >>>> the previously used methods. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I don't see how we can do that : >>> >>> before: >>> WriteFuture write (Object message); >>> >>> after: >>> void write (Object message); >>> WriteFuture writeFuture (Object message); >>> >>> When we go for these method names, we can't keep the old (deprecated) >>> signature since it only differs in return type. >>> >>> Or am I missng something ? >>> >>> >> No, this was my mistake :) >> >> Do we care about breaking backward compatibility ? >> > > I don't think it's that big of a deal going from 1.X - 2.0. Things change. > I'd just focus on making the API as coherent as possible.
+1 > > Alex >
