What an amusing thread. It seems to me the only problem here is the arrogant SOB that decided to defy the Bean naming conventions. LOL. (No offense intended if he is present company :)
With affection, Bill On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Robert Graf-Waczenski <r...@lsoft.com>wrote: > 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 > >
