|
From: Darren D. <da...@da...> - 2006-07-21 14:35:02
|
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 10:51:55PM -0400, Colin Sampaleanu wrote: > historical thing... I picked this up a long long time ago, probably a=20 > bit past Spring 1.0, but at that time it was decided that it would not=20 > be changed in order to not break backwards compatibility, but it's an=20 > unfortunate wart, as people get surprised by it all the time. The one=20 so would the impending 2.0 release be a good time to change this to the behaviour that most would expect? Of course it won't be backwards compatible, but I think those tradeoffs have already been discussed and if you can't do stuff like this on a major version release, Spring will end up carrying this baggage around for ever. IMO, you can expect some non-BC in a major version change and so long as they are prominently documented, it's not so bad. What does anyone else think? Regards, --=20 Darren Davison Public Key: 0xDD356B0D |