I'd say that there's no reason to deprecate a class clearly packaged
as "trinidadinternal".
On 11/14/08, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I decided to be on the safe side to deprecate it, even if it is
> just for one release.
> Jeanne
>
> Jeanne Waldman wrote, On 11/14/2008
Actually, I decided to be on the safe side to deprecate it, even if it
is just for one release.
Jeanne
Jeanne Waldman wrote, On 11/14/2008 9:03 AM PT:
You know this class best, Prakash, so I will remove it.
Jeanne
Prakash Udupa wrote, On 11/13/2008 3:46 PM PT:
I support moving it to public pac
You know this class best, Prakash, so I will remove it.
Jeanne
Prakash Udupa wrote, On 11/13/2008 3:46 PM PT:
I support moving it to public package, but instead of deprecating the
internal copy can we just remove it ?.
* NullChangeManager is default ChangeManager when there is none
e
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Simon Lessard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds acceptable to me.
yap.
+1 on this item
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> adding [Trinidad] to the subject for those of you filtering.
>>
>> Jeanne
>>
>> Jeanne
I support moving it to public package, but instead of deprecating the
internal copy can we just remove it ?.
* NullChangeManager is default ChangeManager when there is none
explicitly registered.
* The only use is in
org.apache.myfaces.trinidadinternal.context.RequestContextImpl,
Sounds acceptable to me.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Jeanne Waldman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> adding [Trinidad] to the subject for those of you filtering.
>
> Jeanne
>
> Jeanne Waldman wrote, On 11/13/2008 2:23 PM PT:
>
> Hi there,
>>
>> I'd like to move the import
>> org.apache.myfaces.t
adding [Trinidad] to the subject for those of you filtering.
Jeanne
Jeanne Waldman wrote, On 11/13/2008 2:23 PM PT:
Hi there,
I'd like to move the import
org.apache.myfaces.trinidadinternal.change.NullChangeManager class
from the internal package to the public package. I can leave the
inter
