On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:53:52 -0600, Jason Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you for your reply. This tip let me remove the perform method from my > base class, but this is actually equivalent to what I was doing. The method > perorm() is simply implemented exactly the way I had done it. Why would a > method be both depreciated and required?
Well, what I get from the javadocs is that, by doing it this way you won't be affected when the perform method is actually removed. The ControllerSupport class will only have the execute method in future releases. This leaves your implementation un-broken in future releases and leaves those that use the old way backwards compatible today. Can anyone confirm this? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
