hi and what do we gain with that? except for the fact that api consumers have to create an Principal instance from a name? not sure if that makes sense... i'd rather just clarify the API contract in the javadoc.
angela On 04/04/17 14:32, "Davide Giannella" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 04/04/2017 11:05, Manfred Baedke wrote: >> Yes, but now we'd break all existing implementations. > >True. We could though, create an overload that receives the principal >and deprecate the other method for the 1.8 timeframe. By 1.10 we delete >the deprecated method. > >D. > >
