we dont do these annoying refactors for no reason. we do not like something about the code and want to fix it.
as far as migration pains we can ease that. take IRequestCycleProcessor as an example. we can create interface RequestCycleProcessor extends IRequestCycleProcessor and deprecate IRequestCycleProcessor. release this as 1.5.0.migration jar and then release 1.5.0 with IRequestCycleProcessor removed. this gives you as much time as you want to migrate your code. -igor On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:14 PM, tetsuo <ronald.tet...@gmail.com> wrote: > -1 > > It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason. > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seij...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> is it perhaps time to take the I out of our interface names? wicket >>> has been the only project i have ever worked on/used that follows this >>> convention, is it time for a change? >>> >>> this is not meant as a flamewar about which convention is teh >>> aw3s0m3st, simply a discussion of whether or not we should switch. >>> >>> -igor >>> >> >
