Sure, we can do that. I meant to ask if we want to remove it at all (optionally after a deprecation phase).
Jochen Howard Lewis Ship <hls...@gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 3. Sep. 2015 20:34: > I think Uli has the right approach; if it does no harm then we can let it > live just a little longer. > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:12 AM, "Ulrich Stärk" <u...@spielviel.de> wrote: > > > Deprecate, than remove in next release. It's internal API but we might > > want to give users relying on it nevertheless a chance to adapt. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Uli > > > > On Wed, September 2, 2015 10:15, Jochen Kemnade wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > we could remove EnumValueEncoderFactory. There's no need for it > anymore, > > > since TypeCoercedValueEncoderFactory steps in to encode/decode anything > > > that has no specific value encoder and EnumValueEncoder delegates to > > > TypeCoercer anyway. > > > I ran the test suite without the EnumValueEncoderFactory and everything > > > works fine. > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Jochen > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org > > > > > > > -- > Howard M. Lewis Ship > > Starting with WalMart Labs on Sep 28th! > > Creator of Apache Tapestry > > (971) 678-5210 > http://howardlewisship.com > @hlship >
