I don't think we should do this yet. We've only just put Node2 out in a release and users have just started to move from the SCADomain APIs to it so to turn around an immediately deprecate it doesn't give a very good user experience, and one of our users has even replied to this thread saying that.
And I don't think we should deprecate it till we know what the final stable API is and I don't think we know Node2 is it yet. Its not great you need to cast to the SCAClient so thats one thing that could be improved, there's the various spec group proposals going on for the client APIs that will be resolved at some point which we'll need to make updates for, I've got a work item i need to do in the next couple of months on the client APIs and that will likely require changes. Just yesterday there was the new proposal for how our samples should be using the SCA programming model. All that to me says we should wait a bit for things to settle down before making breaking changes or deprecating anything, is there any real need to rush this in? ...ant On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK. Instead of renaming, I'll add SCANodeFactory/SCANode and leave the > SCANode2Factory/SCANode2 deprecated. Existing samples or itests will be > migrated to use SCANodeFactory/SCANode. Meanwhile I'll change the maven > artifact ids from node2-xxx to node-xxx. > > Thanks, > Raymond > > From: ant elder > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 6:17 AM > > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Rename Node2/node2 to Node/node in trunk > > > I agree with Dave and think we should leave this to try for a while before > settling on it as a long term final api. > > ...ant > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Thank you for sharing your thought. Which set of Tuscany APIs are you > using? SCADomain or SCANode2? > > I agree that we have to be extra careful to maintain the compatibility for > APIs. But we also have to bite the bullet sometimes as the project evolves, > otherwise it will create even more compatibility issues and confusions over > time. Unfortunately we have been in this half-compatibility mode for a while > and that's probably why it becomes difficult to follow as we give the users > too many choices :-(. Worth to point out is that I proposed this change for > the trunk instead of 1.3.x branches. > > If most of the users still use the SCADomain (due to the fact that most of > our samples are using SCADomain without deprecation), it's probably better > to rename the SCANode2 sooner than later before it gets popular :-). YMMV. > > Thanks, > Raymond > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Dave Sowerby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 12:10 AM > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Rename Node2/node2 to Node/node in trunk > > > > Hi Guys, > > I agree with Ant - as a user of Tuscany for quite some time I've found > it difficult keeping up with the Node api changes - I concur with also > that it would be nice to maintain this current api for a while and > then perhaps look into settling on some longer term final api? > > Cheers, > > Dave. > > -- > Dave Sowerby MEng MBCS > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:45 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > We now have the Node APIs in the code base with 2 suffix, such as > SCANode2, SCANode2Factory and tuscany-node2-api, tuscany-node2-impl. I > propose that we rename them back to Node/node. > > If there is no objection, I'll do it early next week. > > Thanks, > Raymond > > > We've only just put these out in a release as Node2 and said they were the > new and better replacement APIs our users should now be using, so i think > we > need to keep that working for a while so we shouldn't rename them as it > will > break users code. > > ...ant >
