gemmellr commented on issue #33: QPIDJMS-483: Simplify Inheritance and Polymorphism Behavior for third… URL: https://github.com/apache/qpid-jms/pull/33#issuecomment-565480227 I dont really like the rename itself, particularly just for one message type when they all share similar trait, its nicer the way it is. I'm not keen on the idea of renaming an implementation field just to satisfy a use case that isnt particularly expected/intended, i.e it is impl detail and isnt really expected to be accessed in this way in the first place. Perhaps there are other more palatable changes that might 'work' which could be looked at, though even then it doesnt seem that wise to cater for given all of this is implementation detail which is entirely subject to change in future in other ways which I presume could also break such 'schema' usage in future, even in cases where the proposed positive test still passed. On the negative test, theres no reason we would add such a copied 'old' class just to test something doesnt work that the client code didnt actually do, its basically just dead code. Maybe if you elaborate on how specifically you are actually using things beyond the snippet from the test it would help. Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick.
---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] With regards, Apache Git Services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
