Rafał Krupiński schrieb:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Robert Graf-Waczenski <r...@lsoft.com> wrote:
approach, which is tedious work because
[...]
i have to go through each applicable class and
refactor-rename each method.
Please don't try to make us feel guilty :-)
You'll get paid for this, we're not.
In previous post I stated clearly: "If the only problem is the number
of methods to be changed"
not "If you can change only some classes".
Well, yes, i am getting paid for this. So the time that i need to rename
the methods costs my employer big money.
This is a case of true backwards incompatibility and causes trouble in
non-trivial projects such as ours. Other projects may decide to not
upgrade from earlier Struts versions to V 2.1.8.1, which is something i
would definitely take serious if i were working without getting paid,
because having your stuff used by as many people out there as possible
is a major point of FOSS, right? Freedom of choice is the other, meaning
that we could of course stick with V2.1.6 and patch it to our liking. I
personally voted against the latter option and decided to go for the
renaming option because we need some other fixes that are available in
2.1.8. And, to tell the truth, our choice to use "getmProperty()" as
accessor method naming pattern was a bad one originally but we lived
with it since the beginning and are now being bitten in the behind :-)
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org
