Rafal Krzewski wrote:
>
> "Brekke, Jeff" wrote:
>
> > But, can't we keep the DBBroker/ConnectionPool implementation(s) in
> > org.apache.turbine.util.db.pool for
> > compatibility, maybe with a deprecated tag?
>
> Sure, +1 on that. Many people are using the pool in standalone
> programs, we don't want to break their code right away. Deprecated
> tag would also be good, to motivate them to update.
Yeah, that was the idea. Should I subclass the util.db.pool classes
from the new services.db directory and stub every method as deprecated
with delegation to super(...), or should I leave the existing
implementation and mark everything as deprecated?
p.s. Is there a way to deprecate and entire class?
--
Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
