"manik.surtani(a)jboss.com" wrote : | "bstansberry(a)jboss.com" wrote : | | A kinder gentler way is to create CacheImpl, and then make TreeCache a trivial subclass. Then mark TreeCache deprecated with a comment it will be removed in 2.1 or 2.2. | | Do we really want this? Like you said we don't want people talking to the implementation directly at all, especially since we can't guarantee correct behaviour with the interceptor chains, etc. I'd rather remove this altogether, like you said forcing people to write to the new API. +1 from me on not doing that. I added the idea in case any 'kinder, gentler' readers were concerned about changing the name. I'm a heartless thug. ;-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3995387#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...