Personally, I would leave the setters alone (except to add @Deprecated :-) and add new fluent methods. On 15 Feb 2011, at 14:49, Vladimir Blagojevic wrote: > Guys, > > I need to make some decisions, complete this feature and take > configuration fluent API stuff off my plate. Pete made a good point [1] > about method names in fluent API, however, there is a cost involved in > terms of method duplication in all our configuration beans. > > As is, I changed return types for configuration bean setters from void > to a specific type. This will cause binary incompatibility for people > using configuration beans directly in their 5.0 deployments. I think > most people use Configuration and GlobalConfiguration so most will be > immune but some will need to recompile their codebase with Alpha3. > > If we go for duplication then we are avoid this problem. What do we want > to do? > > > Let me know, > Vladimir > > [1] https://community.jboss.org/thread/162543?tstart=0 > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev