>>>>What do people think? I plan to commit this in a few days >>>>unless there is any real objections. >>> >>>I do strongly object putting so many new things into .16. Really. We have >>>rejected >>>smaller changes in the past for stability reasons. >>> >>>I propose to build a .18 (or .20 or whatever we like to call it) version, >>>consisting of >>>the current .16 + your additions, make that a stable release (which should >>>be trivial >>>seen in the light that you even want to put it in .16) and close .16 for >>>development. >>> >>>This would give other devs a chance to get their code included in .18 as >>>well, if it is >>>well tested etc etc >>> >>> >>>If we go along this line, I would be calliung for support from the dev >>>community for >>>testing the proposed .18 before release. >> >>I agree with all that too. We have a 0.9.16.008 now, I think it's time to move >>on to a new vresion branch. Even if it's still .16 + some stuff and not a >>version from head, it remains a new version for me. >> >> Chris Weiss wrote: > what about a new "app" for storing unsupported api classes? This > could even be a HEAD only app and have the stable parts of it moved to > main API at release time. Afterall, these are 3rd party and > unsupported apps we are talking about. > > for this, i would support the CreateObject function to be slightly > mod'd to check for this api when it doens't find a requested class. > The error handling should already be there so it's just another if(). > > I don't think that is feasible - at least for the implementation of the XSLT-support which is dependent of modifying existing classes of the original api.
Regards Sigurd _______________________________________________ Phpgroupware-developers mailing list Phpgroupware-developers@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers
