What would you suggest we do even if it's not backwards compatible? On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Tim Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Tim Williams <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'm working BLUR-23[1] and running into an issue with configs. > > BlurConfiguration currently initializes all defaults in the > > constructor. This makes it impossible to merge a few user overrides > > on top of the defaults. If the user wants to pass a > > BlurConfiguration, they currently have to own the whole thing. The > > only clean way I can see to move to allowing this while maintaining > > compatibility is to create a new constructor allowing passing in > > overrides.. (e.g. BlurConfiguration(BlurConfiguration overrides). > > Another solution might be to just add a "merge(BlurConfiguration > > overrides)" method, I suppose. > > Sorry, i take it back. Because we initialize the defaults in the > default constructor (which the caller would have used) - I don't see a > way of allowing overrides in the existing paradigm through either > methods or constructors - in a backwards compatible way, at least. > Thoughts? > > --tim >
