> From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@;apache.org] > > ex-C++ developers
*Quiet! Don't tell anyone!* > The one place where this convention was broken (NIO) ended up > being regretted by the EG members who pushed through the change. I'm not familiar with this. Do you have a link? The reason I'm asking is that I have written code that way, and I would like to know if there's some issue with it that I have overlooked. Is it related to subclassing (i.e. subtype can not override return type, even to subtype of supertype's return type)? > If you still want it then I can just create an alternative > mechanism that follows standard idioms but I would prefer > to only support one mechanism. I would prefer to keep the code as-is. The code you're changing is three months old and thus released with Fortress 1.0, irrespective of the technical merits of one solution over another. http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-avalon-excalibur/fortress/src/ java/org/apache/excalibur/fortress/util/ContextBuilder.java.diff?r1=1.21 &r2=1.22&diff_format=h If the issues surrounding the idiom is serious enough I have no problem fixing it (I can do the proper deprecation cycle). What is your estimate - is it serious enough to warrant deprecation, renaming of methods (as you can not overload on return type)? /LS -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
