On 5/23/11 9:36 AM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>
>
> On 05/23/2011 02:17 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/23/11 6:00 AM, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>> Hi Bill,
>>>
>>> I think this is very similar to the changes I have currently in my local sandbox that I have made based on the EG
>>> feedback so far.
>>>
>>> There are few differences:
>>>
>>> - I like the way you simplified the WebResource API and gave it more constrained purpose
>>>
>>> - your proposal is full of interfaces. I like it for it's cleanness, esp. while still without javadoc :-), but do we
>>> really want to stick to these interfaces forever without the ability to add any new methods?
>>>
>>
>> Eh, I'd only write Javadoc if the proposal was gonna be taken seriously. I don't understand your point of not being
>> able to add methods though. Why couldn't you with an interface?
>
> Because adding a method to an interface breaks BW compatibility for anyone who implemented the interface in it's earlier
> version. It's the same issue that we have today with core.Request - IMO we cannot just go and add new methods to produce
> a unified interface suitable for both client and server side as well as for the filters/interceptors.
>
Adding methods to an interface does not break backward compatibility.
Removing and changing method signatures does. The Servlet API, for
example, has added numerous new methods over the years.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com