On 3 May 2011 00:12, TedvG TedvG <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pat > E.g. Collection classes: > Still use the existing methods like #add: > perhaps the internal workings of these methods > are further optimized... However I don't have to > change any code for this..
Unfortunately it is not always possible to keep protocol(s) compatible. Because the design of library could be completely different and the old protocol is simply not fit for it (take an XTreams for example). > Regards > Ted > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Pat Maddox <[email protected]> wrote: >> On May 2, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Ted F.A. van Gaalen wrote: >> >>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Am 02.05.2011 um 18:49 schrieb Ted F.A. van Gaalen: >>>> >>>>> Assume that throughout this all coding are countless >>>>> references to classes that are perfectly normal at the >>>>> time of writing. This no exception. >>>>> >>>> Well, if you stay in this "time of writing" (meaning same vm, same image) >>>> everything should be fine. >>> >>> (A) I would always want to move my packages to newer releases because >>> they [might] have better performance due to more optimized core >>> classes ?(in addition to the VM performance) >> >> You'll want to upgrade to benefit from performance gains that result from >> removing the cruft and creating a lean and mean core class library? That >> seems at odds with the "please don't change the core class library" line of >> thought. >> >> Pat >> >> > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
