IIRC, immediately after stating that, the protagonist was attacked by one ;-)
----- Original Message ---- From: David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 1:22:33 PM Subject: Re: well so much for backward compatibility. (RANT) 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!). -David On Nov 19, 2007, at 12:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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. > but shouldn't we try to conserve as much of the programming effort > as we > can. > Why not add the same functions and method and leave the 1.4 > compatibility >
