Have we ever included it in a beta release? If so, deprecation is definitely the right answer. If not, how long has it been around? If only a short while, I'd say go ahead and remove it.
Craig On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Rob Leland wrote: > Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 02:05:09 -0400 > From: Rob Leland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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]>
