David W. Van Couvering wrote:
> In my original proposal: > > * compatibility will be strongly encouraged but not guaranteed > against previous minor versions (e.g. a 10.2 consumer works > with 10.1 common classes, but a 10.3 consumer has a hard > dependency on new methods, it can not work with 10.2 > common classes). > > Perhaps I remember incorrectly, but I remember us (or enough of us) > generally agreeing that gracefully dying when Y level function was > required was not acceptable, as this was a regression of existing > behavior. This was the "nail in the coffin" for my original proposal. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I think that a consumer of common code can always be coded to keep running (in a reduced mode) when faced with an older version of the common code. Thus I think this approach can be made to work, just start with the mindset that dying is unacceptable, rather than inevitable. Dan.
