Compromises will be done that is for sure and yes you do seem to correct this will probably be done on those deprecated methods out there and it would be a good idea too to circumvent the usage of them while still adhering to the requirements.
On 5/12/05, Kev Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >* The complete agreement and compatiblity of the rules set down by TCK > was > >one of the major factors that ensured that we would be 100% Java as it is > by > >Sun > > > > > > > Yep agreed, if we were going to create a 90% but not deprecated code, we > couldn't say that it was Java, and what would be the point of that? > > >* As a very learned person who clearly was authority on the subject > aldready > >pointed out some Sun methods do indeed invoke these deprecated methods > and > >when they are deprecated and when not does indeed fluctuate. And if we > are > >making something should we *compromise* on quality of anything that we > >produce ? > > > > > Yes getting stuff released is a matter of compromise. If you ask Sun > engineers do they believe that everything in Java5 is perfect? Nope, > but they released it anyway. Open source is in the fantastic position > of being able to refactor infinitely and to be able to constantly > improve code - something commercial software usually doesn't have time > to do. > > Being pragmatic allows you to get a working version released, being > idealistic "everything must be designed perfectly before we start > writing code" only works in Utopia, ie nowhere. I firmly believe that > the scale of this project will initially require some sort of > compromises to be made, so long as these are not fundamentally limiting > (and is an unoptimized implementation of deprecated code limiting?), > then they can be changed later when there are free developers with time > on their hands. Also ask yourself as a developer, do you want to spend > your time working on the boring deprecated parts of the code? It's a > burden someone will have to do to get the TCK to pass, but I doubt there > will be many volunteers to code these bits - and the ones who do > volunteer will be respected for the odiousness of teh task that they > have volunteered for. > > This isn't to refute your point that we should make a sub-standard > product, just that parts of the product are more important (deliver more > business value to customer) and should be concentrated on first. As a > n00b on this list, I'm aware that most of what I'm writing could be > regurgitating previously discussed stuff, and I'm also not claiming to > be a VM engineer or someone with prior GC/JIT development experience, > just as someone who's seen the "design first"/idealistic model crash and > burn on too many occasions. > > Kev > -- www.FaeLLe.com <http://www.FaeLLe.com>
