On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve Ulrich wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Julien Vermillard wrote >>> >>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:37:57 +0200 >>> Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Julien Vermillard wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I propose : >>>>> void write(..) as default >>>>> and a >>>>> WriteFuture writeWithFuture(..); >>>>> or something else if someone got a better idea because I'm not sure >>>>> to have the best wording here ;) >>>>> >>>>> WDYT ? >>>>> Julien >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why not simply >>>> >>>> void write( ... ) >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> WriteFuture writeFuture( ... ) ? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> damn I'm an idiot ;) how I can missed this solution. >>> >> >> If you don't want to break backward compatibility, perhaps something like: >> WriteFuture write(...) >> void writeAndForget(...) >> > > We are targeting a 2.0 release, any version before a RC may be changed. But > in order to avoid being stoned by users :), I would suggest to @deprecate > the previously used methods.
I don't see how we can do that : before: WriteFuture write (Object message); after: void write (Object message); WriteFuture writeFuture (Object message); When we go for these method names, we can't keep the old (deprecated) signature since it only differs in return type. Or am I missng something ? Maarten > > And add a decent documentation + howto + FAQ ;) > > Any help warmly welcome ! > > > -- > -- > cordialement, regards, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > directory.apache.org > > >
