On 26 Aug 2005, at 1:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<x-tad-smaller>> The first suggested patch doesn't influence anybody</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>Your words, in JIRA:</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>"The TreeNode interface is the hook for the backing bean developer, the user, into the tree2 framework."</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>If the TreeNode interface is the hook for the backing bean developer, and the first patch changes the TreeNode interface ... how can the first patch not affect anybody?
</x-tad-smaller>
Because
1) Removing methods from a super interface doesn't keep you from adding similar methods to subclasses (or keeping them from a previous implementation); in the supplied patch, the methods are still in the class TreeNodeBase.
2) Removing methods from an interface only influences places where those methods are called on a variable that has the interface as it's static type. The interface is introduced in the tree2 framework for this reason: the tree2 code uses variables of static type TreeNode, and calls methods on it. But never the methods that are removed in the first patch, so it doesn't influence the tree2 code.
3) JSP and JSF EL code and value bindings are interpreted languages, that work on the dynamic type of the objects. If the actual implementation of your TreeNode offers the used methods, it's enough. The interface does not have to offer those methods. (And if your implementation of TreeNode offered those methods before, and you don't change your code, they will offer them still now).
4) Yes, there is technically a possible influence, if your code ever accessed the removed methods on a variable of static type TreeNode. I admit. But my point is that there we will no or very little code out there in practice that actually does that, since it doesn't make much sense for any user code to work with static type TreeNode, and call the removed methods. Check you're code, and please tell me if I am mistaken.
5) If I indeed am mistaken in step 4), I still think the patch should be applied, for reasons mentioned in the JIRA. But then some users will indeed be affected, and we surely should wait for version 1.1.0 or something, that's makes clear that there are compatibility issues.
<x-tad-smaller>Met vriendelijke groeten,
Jan Dockx
</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>
PeopleWare NV - Head Office</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>
Cdt.Weynsstraat 85
B-2660 Hoboken
Tel: +32 3 448.33.38
Fax: +32 3 448.32.66 </x-tad-smaller><x-tad-bigger>
</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-smaller>
PeopleWare NV - Branch Office Geel</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>
Kleinhoefstraat 5
B-2440 Geel
Tel: +32 14 57.00.90
Fax: +32 14 58.13.25</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-bigger>
</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-smaller>
http://www.peopleware.be/
</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>http://www.mobileware.be/</x-tad-smaller>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
