Re: [bv-dev] BVAL-289 renaming methods or follow along

I'm not convinced the proposed new names are particularly clear at first glance, although I'd concede they're a more accurate description. I'd probably favour the current naming convention. Rich. On May 31, 2012 6:16 AM, "Michael Nascimento" <misterm(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > It is not a widely used part of the API and the suggested names make > more sense, so I vote for using new consistent names and deprecate the > old ones. > > Regards, > Michael > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Emmanuel Bernard > <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > > Can you guys weight in on this issue > https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/BVAL-289 > > > > Emmanuel > > _______________________________________________ > > beanvalidation-dev mailing list > > beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev > _______________________________________________ > beanvalidation-dev mailing list > beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev > _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev