On 09.07.2008 10:45:35 Max Berger wrote: > Jeremias, > > Jeremias Maerki schrieb: > > Am I the only one concerned about backwards-compatibility here? > > No. I am also concerned about backwards-compatibility, but in a > different way: > > This change changed the semantics without changing the API, therefore > code still compiled, but crashed (such as the bug I encountered). This > is a type of api change I am not happy with. > > What would be ok with me is if the interface had changed (in this case, > the signature of the functions). My code would no longer compile, and > I'd have to prepare a new plugin for the new version (which i currently > have to do anyways). > > My favorite solution would be: Provide the new semantics with a new > signature (or method name), and keep the old one as "deprecated" for at > least 1 release (Then all plugin developers have enough time to adjust), > then remove it.
+1 to that approach. I volunteer to do the necessary changes if we reach a consensus. > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/javadoc/deprecation/deprecation.html > > > Max Jeremias Maerki