+1 On Jan 6, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Tobias Ivarsson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Mattias Persson > <matt...@neotechnology.com>wrote: > >> 2010/1/6 Rick Bullotta <rick.bullo...@burningskysoftware.com>: >>> It's a relatively minor thing to fix in our code. I would suggest >>> reconsidering the "retro" façade, however - it really doesn't buy you >> much >>> and requires resources to keep it up-to-date, fattens up the JAR a bit, >> and >>> so on. If we're going to all move to the new version, it's best to use >> the >>> new package and class names and not lean on a "crutch" of the retro >> package. >> It'd perhaps require some extra resources, but it wouldn't fatten up >> the JAR since it would be a separate component (if I got this right)! > > > Right. The retro package would be a separate component, it would also only > be maintained until the release of 1.1. All classes and interfaces in the > retro package would obviously be marked as deprecated, giving you heaps of > horrible warnings from javac. > > That said, I do agree, if we can avoid creating it at all, it would free up > some resources. > > -- > Tobias Ivarsson <tobias.ivars...@neotechnology.com> > Hacker, Neo Technology > www.neotechnology.com > Cellphone: +46 706 534857 > _______________________________________________ > Neo mailing list > User@lists.neo4j.org > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user _______________________________________________ Neo mailing list User@lists.neo4j.org https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
