On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
