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

[David E Jones]

-David


On Nov 19, 2007, at 12:42 PM, Chris Howe wrote:

Exactly, hence my solicitation. It's not that I don't trust that BJ ran into something, I'm just wondering what it is he ran into...

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

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature