Agreed. Maybe we should revert the changes, then deprecate the methods in the Realm interface. That _may_ give people a heads up. and in the 2.0 we pull them out. I not 100% sure that would have the desired effect without seeing how the deprecation errors would propagate across the source.
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Brian Demers <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yeah, changing the Realm interface defiantly violates the versioning >> guidelines. Is there anything saying the next release cannot be 2.0 >> (granted that doesn't change the problem here) > > Nope, nothing that says that, but 2.0 is probably a large enough scope > that it means we won't have a release in a long time. I'd rather not > hold off what could be 6 to 9 months before getting our next release > out. IMO that's a stifling thing to do for a community that is > currently picking up a huge amount of steam (~ %20 traffic increase > compounded per month) > > Here is some of the stuff discussed for version 2: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SHIRO/Version+2+Brainstorming > > Please feel free to add your own ideas! > >> On the plus side, I think my ExceptionCatchingModularRealmAuthorizer >> was the only think that broke, which highlights a contribution. > > Yep, but we have no idea how many other custom Authorizer > implementations there are. That could leave a bad taste in the mouths > of those people - not something I'd like to risk. > > It is very important to me that, as a security framework, we create > releases with stability and consistency in mind, especially now that > we're past 1.0. > > My .02, > > Les >
