Maarten Bosteels wrote:
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 ?
No, this was my mistake :)
Do we care about breaking backward compatibility ?
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
