We shouldn't just remove things that were part of the public API without either providing an alternative or at least a good reason why it should be removed (and have that documented clearly as part of the migration documentation).
Eelco On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Matej Knopp <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I don't think I've removed it, I just didn't carry it through :) >> > Yep, this is more correct way to explain :-) > >> >> There are probably more bells and whistles missing. >> > There are two problems here: > 1) we find them slowly, one after another > 2) we (and particularly the new guys in the team like me) are not sure > whether "the removal" is on purpose or not > > Thanks for helping! > >> >> -Matej >> >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > +1 to reenable >> > >> > -igor >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Martin Grigorov >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I just noticed that Matej removed the support >> >> for org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.IDestroyableWebApplicationFactory in >> >> WicketFilter in 1.5 with a change from 4 Jan 2010. >> >> With the new code we don't notify these factories on Filter#destroy(). >> >> If there is no strong reason to not support this feature then I'll >> re-enable >> >> it again. >> >> >> > >> >
