On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 20:14 +0000, Moore, Jonathan wrote: > Well, it didn't take me that long to do, and if we aren't just going to > remove the deprecated method, I wanted to be able to sleep at night. :) > > If we don't want to include code like this then I think we should just > remove the deprecated method, because even if we remain binary > backwards-compatible for one of these folks, the caching module won't work > for them properly (they'll get UnsupportedOperationExceptions) and they'll > have to upgrade to the new API anyway. I'd rather have that discovery > happen for them at compile time than at runtime, to be frank. > > So I guess I'm coming around to: I think we should remove this method > which only appeared publicly in a beta release and for which I think there > is a high probability there are exactly zero people who will actually have > stuff break if we remove it. >
That is a lot of unnecessary code. Let's just remove it along with the deprecated method, and move on. Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
