Scott Gray wrote: > On 19/02/2010, at 10:10 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > >> --- On Fri, 2/19/10, Adam Heath <doo...@brainfood.com> wrote: >>> From: Adam Heath <doo...@brainfood.com> >>> Subject: Re: Discussion: New package org.ofbiz.base.types >>> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org >>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 8:56 PM >>> Adam Heath wrote: >>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> In the org.ofbiz.base.util package there are >>> interfaces and classes that don't really belong there - they >>> are data types, not utility classes. It would be nice if we >>> could create a new package to contain basic data types: >>> org.ofbiz.base.types. The new package would contain things >>> like: Appender, DateRange, Factory, Range, ComparableRange, >>> TimeDuration, etc. >>>>> The org.ofbiz.base.util package could be >>> (informally) limited to classes that follow the utility >>> class pattern (only static methods, private constructor, >>> etc). >>>>> What do you think? >>>> org.ofbiz.base.lang >>> Where ever they get moved to, you need to check for classes >>> that >>> existed in a previous release, and make certain they still >>> exist, and >>> just extend the classes that were copied to the new >>> location. Then, >>> add deprecation to the old versions. >> I probably wouldn't do that. I understand what you're getting at, but it >> adds unnecessary code and complexity to the project. Anyone wanting to >> upgrade from a release who used the affected classes could do a simple >> search and replace on the import statements. >> >> Things like this have been moved around before. > > I agree with Adam, in an ideal world, one would be able to uplift their > hot-deploy components from 9.04 and drop them into 10.x without any issues. > We're probably still a long way from that but I don't think we should make > things any harder for the user than we need to.
Oh, don't get me started on that. It's not currently possible to do that, due to the delegator changes that have occurred. I'd like them to be fixed before a new release is made.
