IMHO there are three "beasts" - undocumented functionality (and therefore unsupported) - official features - deprecated functionality.
Just as "undocumented functionality" may evolve into "official features", I see nothing wrong with moving stuff to be deprecated. Not the same as dropping it completely (at least not yet). <cfcough> cfquery DSN querystrings anyone? </cfcough> On Jan 9, 2008 12:55 PM, Haikal Saadh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree. But this is exactly why we *deprecate*: > > It's formal acknowledgement that there's a better way of doing > something, an official statement saying the old functionality shouldn't > be used. > > > > > Raymond Camden wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2008 4:50 PM, Andrew Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I agree with what you have stated, but it would have been better to enhance > >> one function than create a separate one, just my opinion that's all and > >> they > >> have alpha and beta testers that can check for breakage. > >> > >> > > > > Heh, they can have 1000 alpha testers, and that's still a drop in the > > bucket to the _millions_ of lines of code out there. Trust me - the > > backwards compat thing bugs me too, but I can definitely understand > > Adobe's position here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
