Ok, i see i misunderstood, this i can live with. fwiw :)
Maurice
On 6/20/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
actually
protected void internaldestroy() { ondestroy(); }
@deprecated - use ondestroy instead
final void destroy() {}
void ondestroy() {}
-igor
On 6/20/07, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> as in ?
> protected void internalDestroy()
> {
> ...
> destroy();
> ...
> }
> public final void destroy()
> {
> ondestroy();
> }
> public void ondestroy()
> {
> //do some cleanup here
> }
>
> bah, i'd rather have the rename. I have absolutly no problem with a
> rename as long as it is announced on the mailing list. But i don't
> think Martijn is going to allow that before 1.3.0 is out. But for my
> part make the change whenever you want.
>
> Maurice
>
>
> On 6/20/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 6/20/07, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Whatever makes you happy :)
> > > I see Johan as has already made the change of putting callDestroyers
> > > in internalDestroy.
> > > However if you are going to rename that method (not sure if Martijn is
> > > going to like that this late in the game). Please let us know since
> > > those projects still on jdk 1.4 don't warn about missing override
> > > methods.
> >
> > That's why we should leave the method in there as final and a TODO:
> > remove after compat release.
> >
> > Eelco
> >
>
