RE: [picocontainer-dev] Pico2 Deprecating old Names (Was: Pico2 releasing it ... before starting work on Composer 1.0)

> > Can we aim at releasing Pico2 more or less as is?
> 
> Before I think one thing we should add back into the Pico and Mutable Pico
> are
> the old function names registerComponentInstance, etc etc etc and have them
> marked deprecated (with javadoc pointing to the new method name)
> 
> It should help people migrating a great deal.

Ugh, sorry Mauro, I must have deleted your reply to me....

I can understand that @Deprecations can cause problems in the future, but I find
that:

1 - When I dump in a new version of an opensource project, and all I get are a
ton of compile errors, I tend to give up on that project (at least for the time
being).  Deprecation errors at least give me an idea of where I need to start
looking.  [I totally understand that given the current pico that we aren't
trying to be 100% backwards compatible -- that said, if we can at least hit the
80% mark, I think it will help our community keep up with the rest of us.]

2 - When something fails, I don't necessarily know where to look to figure out
where to start changing my code.  By having deprecations, the compiler is
pointing me in the direction of where to look (the javadocs).

3 - In my experience, having one version that has deprecations and dumping them
at the next version after that. (ie composer will have all deprecations dumped)
seems to pay off with the project's users as well as increase communication with
those contributors that aren't quite so active as you guys. 

Of course, as always, I won't roll on the ground kicking my feet and screaming
if everyone decides they don't want to mess with it, but I'll be happy to add
the interface deprecations myself and take responsibility for them.


									-Mike



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email