I agree with Ted and James - even if I'm not writing a book. ;-) We should zap the new-and-already-obsolete stuff now, and not perpetuate it. Deprecation, IMO, should only be used for things that have already appeared as part of a stable release.
(Depreciation, on the other hand, I'll leave for James and his 20 Yen. :) -- Martin Cooper > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Leland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 11:05 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Policy on depreciation vs deleting new Struts 1.1 methods.] > > > I same across a method in Action that didn't > use one of its parameters, it was added in struts 1.1 > the comment said. > > Since it was added in the 1.1 Time Frame > do we: > A) Immediately remove it or > B) Depreciate the method and remove it later. > > My preference would be to remove it before the final > Struts 1.1 is released, but can we > remove it before the next beta ? > > ----- depreciated validator methods, js ------ > > In a similar more specific note, in the validator > JavaScript I added a floatRange() method, and duplicated > the range() method and called it intRange() for JavaScript. > For Java I added validateIntRange() and validateFloatRange(), > and depreciated range(). > > I would hate to piss off the people who buy Chuck's and Ted's books, > > too much ;-) ! > > So what is the feeling on handling this. > The next version of the books will probably take at least > 12 - 18 months, and I would hate to wait that long since we > just added the validator to struts this go around! > > > Also maybe a new page needs to be created to document > potential incompatabilities. > > -Rob > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
