* Norman Vine -- Tuesday 09 May 2006 17:37:
> (this is not aimed at anyone) [...] one shouldn't forget
> that someone else wrote that code most likely for the same reason one
> wants to change it. i.e it fit their 'vision' :-)
Sure. That's why you need to stay around and defend your code, or
Melchior FRANZ writes:
>
> * Jim Wilson -- Tuesday 09 May 2006 17:01:
> > The second most neglected item (after documentation) in the OSS world is
> > backwards compatibility.
>
> The first item is true, ...
>
> And the second item is also one of the strengths of OSS. It doesn't
> have to carry
* Jim Wilson -- Tuesday 09 May 2006 17:01:
> The second most neglected item (after documentation) in the OSS world is
> backwards compatibility.
The first item is true, although access to the source code makes it
much less painful than badly documented closed source software. And
bad documentation
> From: Melchior FRANZ
>
> Was it common practice to use the commands via telnet? (which
> can, of course, still be done, but it's a little more verbose:
> "set /autopilot/route-manager/input [EMAIL PROTECTED]" etc. See other
> mails in the thread.)
>
Hmmm...it doesn't seem like it is common pr
> From: Melchior FRANZ
>
> But these points wouldn't explain why the old commands would have had to go.
> I made clear at several occasions (twice in the thread, once in the cvs log)
> that I would be willing to add the three commands (not the depreciated ones)
> again if people think they should
* Melchior FRANZ -- Tuesday 09 May 2006 16:39:
> Was it common practice to use the commands via telnet?
No. AddWayPoint wouldn't even work, because props.cxx has no
idea how to handle the target argument. No problem with the
new code, *of course*. One more point ... :-}
m.
---
* Melchior FRANZ -- Tuesday 09 May 2006 16:08:
> AddWayPoint
> PopWayPoint
> ClearRoute
If I'd add new versions for those to fg_commands.cxx, should I
really use this capitalization? That's inconsistent with all
other commands there. Should then probably be:
add-waypoint (arg: "targe
* Jim Wilson -- Tuesday 09 May 2006 15:15:
> > From: Melchior FRANZ
> >
> > FYI: these fgcommands have been removed:
[...]
> Why? Does the old code have to be removed?
> > old-ap-add-waypoint-dialog
> > old-ap-pop-waypoint-dialog
> > old-ap-clear-route-dialog
These commands were marked "
> From: Melchior FRANZ
>
> FYI: these fgcommands have been removed:
>
> AddWayPoint
> PopWayPoint
> ClearRoute
> old-ap-add-waypoint-dialog
> old-ap-pop-waypoint-dialog
> old-ap-clear-route-dialog
>
Why? Does the old code have to be removed?
Best,
Jim
--
Jim Wilson
Kelco Indus
FYI: these fgcommands have been removed:
AddWayPoint
PopWayPoint
ClearRoute
old-ap-add-waypoint-dialog
old-ap-pop-waypoint-dialog
old-ap-clear-route-dialog
m.
---
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, secu
* Melchior FRANZ -- Friday 28 April 2006 19:35:
> I've now put everything in place in sg & fgfs that was need to replace
> the old waypoint dialog with something fancier. I intend to throw out
> auto_gui.[ch]xx,
Committed. Please report any problems. I have yet to look for usage of
the old waypoi
11 matches
Mail list logo
