why are we still arguing about this? just deprecate the damn method already and add the variant
-igor On 2/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the break is hypothetical, then why not leave it in there, perhaps using @deprecated? If there is just one user depending on it, they will have an api break. IMO no api breaks means *no* api breaks, only when security or stability is at risk we *might* warrant an api break. Martijn On 2/18/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/18/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -1: change the parameter type. > > > > +0: add a new method to the class > > > > I doubt this is actually something that needs fixing in 1.2.x though. > > If someone desperately needs it, it is an easy fix in their own > > application, and therefore I think that adding a new method will also > > consist an api break. > > How badly it's needed... probably not as there is a workaround > possible. However, I don't get why you would be against removing/ > changing something that doesn't work *at all* at the moment. Clients > cannot even use it, so the 'break' is purely hypothetical. > > Eelco > -- Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
