On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 ? > I don't think it's that big of a deal going from 1.X - 2.0. Things change. I'd just focus on making the API as coherent as possible. Alex
