Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
You seem to be concerned that the software is *used* in productive environments.
Do software developers who want to change the code have to take that into account? Yes, certainly they should do that.
Is that an argument against the adoption of the software? No, quite the opposite.
No, I'm happy to see it in active use. I fear however that heavy (backward-incompatible) redesign and rearchitecturing will be hindered by the existing installations. Again, this is just thinking out aloud.
No, we definitely won't hinder redesign and rearchitecturing just because the software might be backward-incompatible, because we are very much aware of that there is still a lot of research and development to be done.
That's one of reasons we put so much effort into this XML and XSLT thing,because
there will always be stuff to be "migrated", but with XML and XSLT on every layer you are certainly
less doomed.
Less seriously, it's rather the opposite: More backward-incompatible software gives us some payed
work ;-)
Thanks
Michael
I find the overall reaction to this proposal to be only lukewarm. This is worrying me even more.
Thanks for this open discussion.
</Steven>
