My two cents.
Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 On Oct 27, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Then the ball is in Adrian's camp. And Adrian you should explain us your POV on this ML, and then maybe a vote ?Jacques De : "David E Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I disagree with leaning on deprecation because deprecation means "do not use", "convert all code that uses to use this other thing", and "this is slated for removal in some future release". I don't think that would be accurate here... -David On Oct 26, 2007, at 3:03 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:And this were comments Adrian, Wickersheimer Jeremy and I put in this issue =================================================== Adrian Crum - 21/oct./07 04:15 PM David, Thanks for your input. I don't understand what you're saying though. If those methods aren't deprecated, then developers will continue to use them. This will lead to problems down the road with inconsistent data - users are going to encounter two different results for the same date/time criteria. Are you saying inconsistent data is something we should allow? =================================================== =================================================== Wickersheimer Jeremy - 21/oct./07 07:06 PM David, i understand your point but marking the methods deprecated doesn't remove them, so they can still be used. However they should not be used, as Adrian points out they do not use the correct locale so there output will be inconsistent. Marking the deprecated is a good way to say that the code using them should be migrated at, and it would also make the compiler throw out useful warnings. =================================================== =================================================== Jacques Le Roux - 21/oct./07 11:12 PM David, I agree with David and Jeremy. Deprecating and documenting it in code seems a good idea in this case. There are better chances to be read than in the Best practices Guides (pragmatic POV) which does not mean that this should not be documented at this higher level too. Is there something else we are missing ? =================================================== So I maybe misunderstood but if deprecating is the way here (you did not say anything about that) why put in the framework a static method which, according to Adrian and his noon+24h exmaple, is a bad practice ? Maybe Adrian is wrong about his example but he has done a lot of work around this issue hence it's doubtful. Mainly to second Adrian who is really alone trying to explain his view. Jacques ----- Message d'origine ----- De : "David E Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> À : <[email protected]> Envoyé : vendredi 26 octobre 2007 02:28 Objet : Re: JAZ- [Fwd: Re: svn commit: r586582 - /ofbiz/trunk/ framework/base/src/base/org/ofbiz/base/util/UtilDateTime.java]On Oct 25, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:Andrew, I understand what the method does. The point I'm trying to make is this: It is not needed and it provides a way to introduce inconsistent data into the project. I understand the method solves a problem for a particular client, but it's not a good thing to include in the project. There is a discussion on Jira about this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1361Yes, and Adrian you seem to have missed my point there, or maybe you disagree with me? The framework is NOT around to force stuff. Here is what I wrote there: =================================================== While I agree that this should be the best practice, there is a big difference in the framework between what we "allow" and what we "recommend".There is lots of stuff you _can_ do with the framework that is reallynot a good idea, thought some might disagree. Things that we recommend should be documented in the Best Practices Guide. Other things we don't want to make more difficult, IMO, that this is important because of the comment about disagreement above. There arepretty much always good reasons why we do things the way we recommendin the framework, but those recommendations have evolved over timeand will continue to evolve as well, and not allowing things we don'trecommend stifles this and limits opportunity to progress and improve. That is of course a generality, and there is a clear best practicehere that should be documented and it probably won't ever change, butI'm still against forcing on a matter of principle. =================================================== If you have an issue with that, let's discuss that directly, and if necessary vote on it. That seems to be the difference of opinion, so let's resolve it... now. -David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
