I guess what I don't understand here is that if this new method could possibly introduce bugs further down the track and the same result can be achieved using existing methods, whats the big deal about using those existing methods?
Scott On 27/10/2007, Adrian Crum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David E Jones wrote: > > On Oct 26, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > > > >> Tim Ruppert wrote: > >> > >>> As an alternative to changing this Adrian, maybe you could just put > >>> some javadoc on the method that explains why someone might NOT want > >>> to use it. Then you'd get the best of both worlds - both the > >>> documentation AND the help. > >> > >> > >> I did better than that - I deprecated it: > >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1361 > >> > >> The clients of Hotwax Media would be better served if its programmers > >> spent more time writing well crafted code, and less time defending > >> inferior code. > > > > > > Aside from the way this is phrased, the problem I have with this is > > that it's a dangerous notion. > > > > Around 90% of what is in OFBiz is there because a client needed it. > > > > That is THE BEST test we have for whether something is needed/wanted in > > the real world or not. Everything else is just speculative. Not that > > clients always have the best of ideas (it's all of our job to help with > > that), but this is the best "litmus test" (if you will) for what makes > > sense in the real world, which is after all what we're trying to > > provide for with this project. > > > > -David > > I used bad judgement in that final remark. I offer my apologies to the folks > at Hotwax. > > -Adrian > > >
