search

robstoll / atrium-roadmap

Contains issues created by the maintainers of Atrium
1 stars 0 forks source link

remove deprecated functionality and modules with 0.10.0 #52

Closed robstoll closed 4 years ago

robstoll commented 4 years ago

Atrium has already quite a lot of deprecated functionality. So far I have written in the deprecated annotations, that this functionality stays in Atrium till 1.0.0. However, I have also mentioned in each release that only API is stable, everything else might change without warning. @igorakkerman asked me via slack if we could remove deprecated functionality and proposed that we remove it with 0.10.0. IMO 0.10.0 would be a good moment as we are going to remove the ServiceLoader mechanism, remove the ability to exchange implementations on a jar level (fuse domain-api, domain-robstoll and domain-robstoll-lib into one module, same on core level, remove domain-builders and other things). All this to reduce complexity as we came to the conclusion that this flexibility is not required (more info in #25)

@jGleitz, @name213 objections?

robstoll commented 4 years ago

the time it takes to build Atrium on travis bothers me already for a longer time. It should be faster. Thus I decided that I will also remove deprecated API modules with 0.10.0. People sticking to en_UK or cc-... can use 0.9.0. Over a longer term they have to migrate to fluent or infix anyway. In the worst case we can ship a 0.9.1 if there are major bugs. So far there have been none in Atrium (none were reported at least) and thus I think this decision should be fine. I'll update the README accordingly and modify the @Deprecated annotations. Also not removing deprecated API would make it harder to remove deprecated domain/core modules

jGleitz commented 4 years ago

I am also in favour of removing deprecated things in 0.10.0. As I wrote in #51, I think it is okay for breaking changes to occur relatively often while the package is still in beta phase.

robstoll commented 4 years ago

changed with ef95313c

robstoll commented 4 years ago

We stick to the plan, but after discussion in #61 we don't name the version 0.10.0 but 1.0.0 which I like a lot as we break things with a major version and not a minor :)