Yes, I kinda agree.
If it does not harm, let's restore compatibility.
Le lun. 27 janv. 2025 à 19:43, Thomas Wolf <tw...@apache.org> a écrit :
> On 21.01.25 23:57 , Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> > And I agree.
> >
> > The change was an honest mistake, I really thought that nobody would
> ever instantiate this class, which should really be abstract.
> >
> > So whatever people chose:
> >
> > the vote is open, please cast a -1 if you think this should be fixed,
> it's a no brainer for me to cut another release.
>
> -1
>
> I think the incompatibility should be fixed. Yes, it's a minor thing.
> Nevertheless: especially since one reason for this release is a commit
> that was supposed to restore binary compatibility with 1.2.0 it would
> be mighty strange to introduce some other incompatibility.
>
> Besides, instantiating this default empty implementation might make
> sense for some tests, maybe even as an anonymous subclass as in
>
> foo = new DefaultFtplet() {
> // Override methods as needed here
> };
>
> Please make the constructor public again.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mina.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@mina.apache.org
>
>
--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
