Hi Stas, On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com>wrote: > >> > Removing unneeded limitations, rather than forcing them to users, is >> user >> > friendly and the way to go. IMHO. >> >> If we wrote it from scratch, sure. But if we already have existing and >> working one, having people to deal with migrating data and >> incompatibilities that arise IMHO is not worth the additional benefit of >> having session variable named "!", without which one can live quite well. >> So I'm not against having option for new serializer that does it if >> somebody needs it, but I think changing the default for this and the >> disruption potentially caused by it is not a very good idea. > > > I agree. Breaking existing apps w/o good reason must be avoided. Therefore, > I proposed that introduce new serializer for 5.5 as optional. Do you > agree to have new serializer for 5.6 as optional and make it default > for future releases? > Or make it optional for 5.5 and 5.6, write full documentation about serializer and make new serializer default for future releases. It would work better. There would be enough time for users may have BC issue. If they do, it would be simple task to adopt because it is plain serialize(). What do you think? -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net
