On Jan 12, 2008 4:49 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 12, 2008 3:45 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/12/08, Luc Maisonobe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One comment about this change: this would break compatibility with > > > version 1.1 and the clirr plugin flags this as an error. > > <snip/> > > > > That was my initial reaction as well when I read your first note > > (below). In general, we try to avoid incompatible changes (there are > > specific cases where we can attempt to push for exceptions, such as > > blatant bugs and/or v0.x releases). > > > > About the clirr errors you mention in the following paragraph, I > > suspect they will come up for discussion at the next release unless > > they are addressed or its a major release etc. > > > Yes. We need to fix these things somehow. The decision to make these > fields protected in 1.0 was unfortunate, but we need to find a way to > maintain compatibility while we deprecate things. Sorry, I think this > was my mistake. I will look into how to fix the problems in the stats > package.
I remember now what is going on here. The protected fields "removed" from DescriptiveStatisticsImpl, SummaryStatisticsImpl were moved to their superclasses, so are still available to them and their subclasses. I think this is OK, just should be commented in release notes. Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
