Just rename - as a delayed strategy to not break anything until _just before_ 2.0.0 final. Basically during the 2.0.0 release process. Does that make sense?
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Darin Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: > DefaultSecurityManager represents the legacy inheritance-based approach > where as ApplicationSecurityManager represents the new composition-based > approach. By re-naming the security manager, as you've initially done in > v2, developers will be less likely to assume which approach is taken. In > other words for your option #2, are you saying that you intend to just > rename ApplicationSecurityManager to DefaultSecurityManager, or actually > commingle code? > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Yeah, the idea for deprecating it is that the current > > DefaultSecurityManager implementation suffers from excessive subclassing, > > as did other Shiro components in 1.x. Shiro 2.x favors much more the > > cleaner OO approach of 'composition over inheritance' where functionality > > is delegated to components rather than relying on subclasses (and making > > things more pluggable / flexible in the process). > > > > ApplicationSecurityManager is really just a lateral move of the same > > behavior of DefaultSecurityManager, but in a different class name so > > dramatic class hierarchy changes don't break people currently compiling > > against the DefaultSecurityManager hierarchy. > > > > So there are two approaches for a 2.0.0 final release that I'm thinking > > about. @Deprecate DefaultSecurityManager now to ensure people don't use > it > > anymore and then: > > > > 1. delete it permanently, or > > 2. copy the ApplicationSecurityManager logic into DefaultSecurityManager > > at the last minute right before 2.0.0 (making DSM backwards incompatible) > > and then deleting ApplicationSecurityManager. > > > > Both approaches are backwards incompatible, but I prefer #2 just because > > DefaultSecurityManager is well-known enough such that not having it might > > have more problems than the compiler errors from having different > behavior. > > > > I'm trying really hard to keep all things backwards compatible, as I > think > > that is a worthwhile goal in a well-established project like Shiro, but > > sometimes 'cleaning house' does more good for the community moving > forward > > than having weird / less-well-designed things stick around and > potentially > > cause confusion. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Les > > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Darin Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Les > > > > > > Would you please confirm that the DefaultSecurityManager is to be > > > deprecated as of 2.0 , given the ApplicationSecurityManager ? the > > > DefaultSecurityManager hasn't been marked @deprecated yet and so I > wanted > > > to confirm > > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > DG > > > > > >
