Yes. I am all +1 for removing dead code. Uli
On 03.09.15 20:52, Jochen Kemnade wrote: > Sure, we can do that. I meant to ask if we want to remove it at all > (optionally after a deprecation phase). > > Jochen > > Howard Lewis Ship <[email protected]> schrieb am Do., 3. Sep. 2015 20:34: > >> I think Uli has the right approach; if it does no harm then we can let it >> live just a little longer. >> >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:12 AM, "Ulrich Stärk" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Deprecate, than remove in next release. It's internal API but we might >>> want to give users relying on it nevertheless a chance to adapt. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Uli >>> >>> On Wed, September 2, 2015 10:15, Jochen Kemnade wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> we could remove EnumValueEncoderFactory. There's no need for it >> anymore, >>>> since TypeCoercedValueEncoderFactory steps in to encode/decode anything >>>> that has no specific value encoder and EnumValueEncoder delegates to >>>> TypeCoercer anyway. >>>> I ran the test suite without the EnumValueEncoderFactory and everything >>>> works fine. >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> Jochen >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Howard M. Lewis Ship >> >> Starting with WalMart Labs on Sep 28th! >> >> Creator of Apache Tapestry >> >> (971) 678-5210 >> http://howardlewisship.com >> @hlship >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
