You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> on 2008/03/14 04:15:40 UTC
[BeanUtils] Breaking compatibility with 1.8.0-BETA
I've been looking at the memory leaks described in BEANUTILS-291[1]
and am considering making API changes that will break compatibility
with the BeanUtils 1.8.0-BETA release to remove one of the issues. The
changes however are in new Converter implementations added after the
previous BeanUtils 1.7.0 release and so compatibility with that
version will not be broken.
Briefly, I want to remove the Class parameter from AbstractConverter's
constructors (will also impact other implementations that derive from
it) and make the protected getDefaultType() method abstract.
IMO breaking compatibility with a *Beta* release is OK, but does
anyone have any objections to doing that?
Niall
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-291
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [BeanUtils] Breaking compatibility with 1.8.0-BETA
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> IMO breaking compatibility with a *Beta* release is OK, but does
> anyone have any objections to doing that?
+1
Breaking a Beta release is OK in my book
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [BeanUtils] Breaking compatibility with 1.8.0-BETA
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
+1 from me. Go ahead and break it. :)
On 3/14/08, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > On 3/14/08, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Niall Pemberton
> > >
> > > <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > How does removing the parameter solve the leaking?
> > > >
> > > > Hi Paul,
> > > >
> > > > I don't want to put you off, but I'm just in the process of writing
> > up
> > > > some stuff that I'll post on the JIRA ticket - which is probably the
> > > > best place to discuss actual changes/issues. Really I was just
> > looking
> > > > for opinions on breaking compatibility with a Beta release in this
> > > > thread - a heads up, rather than me going ahead and making changes
> > > > only to find people objecting if/when theres a release vote for
> > > > BeanUtils.
> > >
> > >
> > > Doesn't mean much as I'm such a liberal on the subject; but break
> > > compat with beta release +1.
> > >
> > <snip/>
> >
> > I think thats fine as well.
> >
> > From the versioning docs [1]:
> >
> > <quote>
> > While every effort should be made to ensure the quality of released
> > code, "beta" releases are essentially provided as-is with no
> > guarantees of stability or maintenance.
> > </quote>
> >
> > -Rahul
> >
> > [1] http://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [BeanUtils] Breaking compatibility with 1.8.0-BETA
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
+1
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 3/14/08, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Niall Pemberton
> >
> > <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > How does removing the parameter solve the leaking?
> > >
> > > Hi Paul,
> > >
> > > I don't want to put you off, but I'm just in the process of writing
> up
> > > some stuff that I'll post on the JIRA ticket - which is probably the
> > > best place to discuss actual changes/issues. Really I was just
> looking
> > > for opinions on breaking compatibility with a Beta release in this
> > > thread - a heads up, rather than me going ahead and making changes
> > > only to find people objecting if/when theres a release vote for
> > > BeanUtils.
> >
> >
> > Doesn't mean much as I'm such a liberal on the subject; but break
> > compat with beta release +1.
> >
> <snip/>
>
> I think thats fine as well.
>
> From the versioning docs [1]:
>
> <quote>
> While every effort should be made to ensure the quality of released
> code, "beta" releases are essentially provided as-is with no
> guarantees of stability or maintenance.
> </quote>
>
> -Rahul
>
> [1] http://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [BeanUtils] Breaking compatibility with 1.8.0-BETA
Posted by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>.
On 3/14/08, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Niall Pemberton
>
> <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > How does removing the parameter solve the leaking?
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > I don't want to put you off, but I'm just in the process of writing up
> > some stuff that I'll post on the JIRA ticket - which is probably the
> > best place to discuss actual changes/issues. Really I was just looking
> > for opinions on breaking compatibility with a Beta release in this
> > thread - a heads up, rather than me going ahead and making changes
> > only to find people objecting if/when theres a release vote for
> > BeanUtils.
>
>
> Doesn't mean much as I'm such a liberal on the subject; but break
> compat with beta release +1.
>
<snip/>
I think thats fine as well.
>From the versioning docs [1]:
<quote>
While every effort should be made to ensure the quality of released
code, "beta" releases are essentially provided as-is with no
guarantees of stability or maintenance.
</quote>
-Rahul
[1] http://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [BeanUtils] Breaking compatibility with 1.8.0-BETA
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@yahoo.com>.
--- Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Niall Pemberton
> <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Paul Benedict
> <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > How does removing the parameter solve the
> leaking?
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > I don't want to put you off, but I'm just in the
> process of writing up
> > some stuff that I'll post on the JIRA ticket -
> which is probably the
> > best place to discuss actual changes/issues.
> Really I was just looking
> > for opinions on breaking compatibility with a
> Beta release in this
> > thread - a heads up, rather than me going ahead
> and making changes
> > only to find people objecting if/when theres a
> release vote for
> > BeanUtils.
>
> Doesn't mean much as I'm such a liberal on the
> subject; but break
> compat with beta release +1.
>
Agreed; alphas, and to a lesser extent betas should
allow users (even those who are developers) to
identify problems. If the API will be better for
being changed upfront like this, bleeding-edge beta
users should be agile enough to adapt. That was a
risk they (hopefully knowingly) undertook. We do
appreciate the fact that they are willing to step up
and act as guinea pigs, but if a change is for the
greater good...
-Matt
> Hen
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [BeanUtils] Breaking compatibility with 1.8.0-BETA
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Niall Pemberton
<ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> > How does removing the parameter solve the leaking?
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I don't want to put you off, but I'm just in the process of writing up
> some stuff that I'll post on the JIRA ticket - which is probably the
> best place to discuss actual changes/issues. Really I was just looking
> for opinions on breaking compatibility with a Beta release in this
> thread - a heads up, rather than me going ahead and making changes
> only to find people objecting if/when theres a release vote for
> BeanUtils.
Doesn't mean much as I'm such a liberal on the subject; but break
compat with beta release +1.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [BeanUtils] Breaking compatibility with 1.8.0-BETA
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> How does removing the parameter solve the leaking?
Hi Paul,
I don't want to put you off, but I'm just in the process of writing up
some stuff that I'll post on the JIRA ticket - which is probably the
best place to discuss actual changes/issues. Really I was just looking
for opinions on breaking compatibility with a Beta release in this
thread - a heads up, rather than me going ahead and making changes
only to find people objecting if/when theres a release vote for
BeanUtils.
Niall
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've been looking at the memory leaks described in BEANUTILS-291[1]
> > and am considering making API changes that will break compatibility
> > with the BeanUtils 1.8.0-BETA release to remove one of the issues. The
> > changes however are in new Converter implementations added after the
> > previous BeanUtils 1.7.0 release and so compatibility with that
> > version will not be broken.
> >
> > Briefly, I want to remove the Class parameter from AbstractConverter's
> > constructors (will also impact other implementations that derive from
> > it) and make the protected getDefaultType() method abstract.
> >
> > IMO breaking compatibility with a *Beta* release is OK, but does
> > anyone have any objections to doing that?
> >
> > Niall
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-291
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [BeanUtils] Breaking compatibility with 1.8.0-BETA
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
How does removing the parameter solve the leaking?
Paul
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I've been looking at the memory leaks described in BEANUTILS-291[1]
> and am considering making API changes that will break compatibility
> with the BeanUtils 1.8.0-BETA release to remove one of the issues. The
> changes however are in new Converter implementations added after the
> previous BeanUtils 1.7.0 release and so compatibility with that
> version will not be broken.
>
> Briefly, I want to remove the Class parameter from AbstractConverter's
> constructors (will also impact other implementations that derive from
> it) and make the protected getDefaultType() method abstract.
>
> IMO breaking compatibility with a *Beta* release is OK, but does
> anyone have any objections to doing that?
>
> Niall
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-291
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>