I think I'll commit it to 5.3.2; if it's problematic, we can back out the change. I don't think it will be, because any existing code will be using only private fields anyway, largely not triggering the new logic.
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Bob Harner <[email protected]> wrote: > As long as it is a 100% seemless upgrade for users, it sounds to me like a > great feature to squeeze into 5.3.2. > > Bob Harner > On Dec 23, 2011 1:07 PM, "Howard Lewis Ship" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I've been spending a couple of hours changing Plastic to allow fields >> to be protected or package private (in other words, not public). In >> fact, fields that are not instrumented may even be public (this would >> be final fields, or fields with @Retain). >> >> I have working tests inside Plastic; I'm about to convert a lot of >> component fields from private to protected, which will make extending >> existing Tapestry components a lot easier, as there will be reasonable >> access to parameters defined in base classes. >> >> In any case, this is a really nice change that I was originally >> slating for 5.4 but I'm feeling pretty confident about the code ... is >> this too big a change to fit into 5.3.2? >> >> -- >> Howard M. Lewis Ship >> >> Creator of Apache Tapestry >> >> The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to >> learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast! >> >> (971) 678-5210 >> http://howardlewisship.com >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Creator of Apache Tapestry The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast! (971) 678-5210 http://howardlewisship.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
