On 11/3/05, Ron Teitelbaum <Ron at usmedrec.com> wrote:
> I agree with your approach of a simpler superclass leaving the heavyweight
> as a sub.  It would be useful for people to understand the class.  Maybe you
> could consider leaving the class name the same and adding a new refactored
> superclass?  That way if there are people that have used the class they do
> not have to change their code.
>
I think that possibility is low, and if someone did it they did it
recently i.e. they are active developers, because the class is new
and, as I said, I yet have to come across code that uses it.

So I'd vote for the most logical naming and against backwards
compatibility in this case.