On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Jonathan Ferguson <j...@spiralarm.com>wrote:
> > > 2009/11/18 David Pollak <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> > > >> >> ------------------------------------- >>> Jonathan Ferguson<j...@spiralarm.com> wrote: >>> >>> I was thinking about this earlier, if there is to be a 2.0 I would hope >>> there was a chance to remove deprecated code. >>> >> >> Which particular deprecated code are you thinking. >> > > Generally, nothing concrete, there have been a few conversations on the > list where you have said to leave deprecated code in place rather than > remove so as not to cause undue pain. > Anything that was introduced after M5 that's now deprecated should be removed. Anything that was deprecated in 1.0 should be removed. The pre M5 stuff that's deprecated should be taken on a case by case basis. If anyone would like to sign up to make a list of the above, please do and open tickets (except for the pre M5 stuff which should result in a discussion on list). > > >> >> >>> Also consider making breaking >>> changes @dpp hasn't been in favour of making to date. >>> >> >> Which changes are you thinking about? >> > > > Once again, it was a general there have been a few conversations on the > list where changing from Option to Box or renaming functions and you've > suggested leaving them, once again not to cause undue pain. > Changing return types is wicked dangerous. There are places in the code that are currently Option[] and they should likely stay that way (stuff that's related to Scala's XML attributes deals with Option, but not Box). I'd like to see the JSON stuff moved from Option to Box, but that's Joni's call. If there are additional Option that should be Box, let's see what they are. In terms of renaming stuff, Kris opened a thread on this. Now is the time to suggest changes. I am all for cleaning up Lift's method & class names, but where it can't be done with a simple depcrecation cycle, then we have to see the trade-offs between making the change and the value of the change. Thanks, David > > >> >> >>> Not to annoy him. As >>> 1.X to 2.X is a big enough change that people who don't want to move can >>> stay with a stable 1.X and those of us who are running HEAD/TRUNK >>> whatever >>> these new fangled git kids call it nowadays can keep racing along. >>> >> >> I'm not sure we have the resources to support a 1.X and a 2.X and a 2.7.x >> and a 2.8.x branch. If there are any folks who want to step up and maintain >> a branch (or if there's money to hire someone), it's something worth a >> discussion, but I don't think there's anyone I know of who could maintain a >> 1.X branch if we're going to get radical with a 2.X. I think it's one >> branch. >> > > I may not have thought of this, we have 1.0.X and 1.1 at the moment. I > guess I thought a 1.1 and 1.0.X would be unsupported if people didn't have > money. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lift" group. > To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<liftweb%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=. > -- Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp Surf the harmonics -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=.
