On 05/13/2013 08:06 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> currently, the Bag interface states that it violates the Collection
> contract. This is mainly because the interface was defined like that,
> but could be easily changed.
>
> As we are not binary compatible anymore with previous releases, i
On 14 May 2013 22:37, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> +1
>
> since the package name will change, client code has to be changed anyway.
> Now is the time to get rid of all flaws of the old API.
+0
I agree, but the previous behaviour does seem useful.
So if it can be provided in addition to supporting th
Le 14/05/2013 19:30, Thomas Neidhart a écrit :
> Everybody is welcome to express his/her opinion on the following options:
>
> [ ] +1 Yeah do this change, it's really time
> [ ] +0 OK great, but we should add a Bag decorator which mimics the
>pre-4.0 behavior
> [ ] -0 Well, I do not use c
+1
since the package name will change, client code has to be changed anyway.
Now is the time to get rid of all flaws of the old API.
2013/5/14 Matt Benson
> +0
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Thomas Neidhart <
> thomas.neidh...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > On 05/13/2013 08:06 PM
+0
Matt
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 05/13/2013 08:06 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > currently, the Bag interface states that it violates the Collection
> > contract. This is mainly because the interface was defined like that,
> > but could be easil
On 05/13/2013 08:06 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> currently, the Bag interface states that it violates the Collection
> contract. This is mainly because the interface was defined like that,
> but could be easily changed.
>
> As we are not binary compatible anymore with previous releases, i
On 05/13/2013 09:19 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 13 May 2013 19:06, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> currently, the Bag interface states that it violates the Collection
>> contract. This is mainly because the interface was defined like that,
>> but could be easily changed.
>>
>> As we are not binary co
On 13 May 2013 19:06, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> currently, the Bag interface states that it violates the Collection
> contract. This is mainly because the interface was defined like that,
> but could be easily changed.
>
> As we are not binary compatible anymore with previous releases, it w
Hi,
currently, the Bag interface states that it violates the Collection
contract. This is mainly because the interface was defined like that,
but could be easily changed.
As we are not binary compatible anymore with previous releases, it would
be the right time to do this now (or leave it as it i
