Re: well so much for backward compatibility. (RANT)

[David E Jones]

-David


On Nov 19, 2007, at 12:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I still haven't seen any response on my question, basically any evidence of non-backward compatibility or the nature of the problem BJ is seeing. Just like in "The Princess Bride" movie: "Rodents Of Unusual Size, I don't believe they exist". ;) BJ: please send along the errors you are seeing so this can be easily reviewed by a larger audience (rather than people having to try to reproduce what you're doing, which is hard with custom code!).

I agree with BJ. Backward compatibility should be a LAW only broken for a

very compelling reason, note a goal.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:46 PM
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: well so much for backward compatibility. (RANT)


I just plugged my code from ver 4.0 into trunk
guess what
none of it works.
so what happend to depreciating then removing, based on releases.
Sure ver 1.5 has lots of neat things.

can.

but shouldn't we try to conserve as much of the programming effort as we Why not add the same functions and method and leave the 1.4 compatibility

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature