On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Mattias Persson <matt...@neotechnology.com>wrote:
> 2010/1/6 Rick Bullotta <rick.bullo...@burningskysoftware.com>: > > It's a relatively minor thing to fix in our code. I would suggest > > reconsidering the "retro" façade, however - it really doesn't buy you > much > > and requires resources to keep it up-to-date, fattens up the JAR a bit, > and > > so on. If we're going to all move to the new version, it's best to use > the > > new package and class names and not lean on a "crutch" of the retro > package. > It'd perhaps require some extra resources, but it wouldn't fatten up > the JAR since it would be a separate component (if I got this right)! Right. The retro package would be a separate component, it would also only be maintained until the release of 1.1. All classes and interfaces in the retro package would obviously be marked as deprecated, giving you heaps of horrible warnings from javac. That said, I do agree, if we can avoid creating it at all, it would free up some resources. -- Tobias Ivarsson <tobias.ivars...@neotechnology.com> Hacker, Neo Technology www.neotechnology.com Cellphone: +46 706 534857 _______________________________________________ Neo mailing list User@lists.neo4j.org https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
