On 1/5/10 9:01 PM, Ed Burns wrote:
> JD> Well, we try not to change publicly facing APIs - any chance of
> having
> JD> the old filter class still there as a proxy to the new one, so existing
> JD> apps continue to work? I'd prefer not to break existing apps with a dot
> JD> dot release, even if the fix is a single line of configuration.
>
> JD> Otherwise, no objection.
>
> Thanks for doing this. This is very important work, Jason. I agree
> with Jim that I'd like to have just the old filter there.
>
That's a fair point. How about this:
* I move all of the code as I've done.
* I created a proxy in the old location that points to the new one as
Jim suggested. What I might do is, in the old location, just extend the
"new" one, possibly marking this class with @Deprecated and logging a
warning.
* At some point in the future remove the "proxy" to finish the clean up.
Does that sound OK?
--
Jason Lee, SCJP
President, Oklahoma City Java Users Group
Senior Java Developer, Sun Microsystems
http://blogs.steeplesoft.com