if it works for you keep it. all we did was give you a better/safer alternative.
-igor On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:59 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > I am glad we have something new that's better, but going from "do > this" to "this is evil" is the troubling part. A lot of us have a lot > of code that is based on the previous advice. Now declaring that code > is "evil" is kind of scary, especially in the "middle" of a major > version. If something is evil, then we should probably try to avoid > it, so what do we do, go clean up all of our existing code (and > re-test it)? > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> how so? we added something new that we think will work better. >> >> -igor >> >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:45 PM, James Carman >> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Eelco Hillenius >>> <eelco.hillen...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Niether is evil. It has potential pitfalls, which you should just be >>>> aware of. We use such overrides all over the place and never have >>>> problems with them either. :-) Avoiding it is safer, but also more >>>> verbose (in 1.3.x at least). >>>> >>> >>> Well, in the past, the "canned" answer was "override >>> isEnabled/isVisible." Changing that paradigm and doing a complete 180 >>> is troubling. >>> >> >
