Re: [infinispan-dev] [jgroups-dev] Incompatible change in 3.1.0

Hmmm, why do you need to break API here? Couldn't you maintain the current API and add?: void Message.setMsgFlag(short flag) void Message.clearMsgFlag(short flag) boolean Message.isMsgFlagSet(short flag)

Any new flags you add could be added to Message or a different interface and define them as short? I think you can avoid breaking old clients here. Also, I don't think it's good to break such API in 3.1, should have been done in 3.0 :)

On Nov 28, 2011, at 5:38 PM, Bela Ban wrote: > FYI > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [jgroups-dev] Incompatible change in 3.1.0 > Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:36:49 +0100 > From: Bela Ban&lt;belaban(a)yahoo.com&gt; > To: jg-users&lt;javagroups-users(a)lists.sourceforge.net&gt;, jg-dev > <javagroups-development(a)lists.sourceforge.net&gt; > > I'm working on an issue that requires a change in Message and > RequestOptions: I want to change the 'flags' field from a byte to a > short. I'd changethe follwoing methods and fields: > > - Message.OOB, DONT_BUNDLE, NO_FC, SCOPED, NO_RELIABILITY, > NO_TOTAL_ORDER, NO_RELAY would become a short from a byte > > - void Message.setFlag(byte flag) --> void Message.setFlag(short flag); > - void Message.clearFlag(byte flag) --> void Message.clearFlag(short flag) > - boolean Message.isFlagSet(byte flag) --> boolean > Message.isFlagSet(short flag) > > A typical use case such as: > > Message msg=new Message(...); > msg.setFlag(Message.OOB); > > would *not* require any change at all. > > However, if you have: > > byte flags=Message.OOB; > msg.setFlag(flags); > > This wouldn't work as 'flags' would have to be a short (or downcast to a > byte). > > Also, in RequestOptions, the 'flags' field would have to be changed to a > short (from a byte). RequestOptions.setFlags()/getFlags()/clearFlags() > would be affected. Again, typical code like this: > RequestOptions opts=new RequestOptions(ResponseMode.GET_ALL, 5000, > false).setFlags(Message.OOB) > > would not have to be changed at all. > > > What do people think ? I know this is an API change, although a minor > one, and I wanted to see if anyone's code would break. > > I checked Infinispan (master) and this doesn't cause any code breakage. > > > [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1250 > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev -- Galder Zamarreño Sr. Software Engineer Infinispan, JBoss Cache _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev