On 02/25/2013 10:27 PM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote: >> (because they had an extension accessing the DB directly). > > Ignoring abstractions like this and making oneself dependent on private > internals of a system leads to fragility and rigidity. This is not good. > I strongly oppose doing effort to not break compatibility with such code > as a general rule since this would encourage bad practices.
This was only chosen as an example why someone might want to use a particular SMW version a while longer, but you are right, of course, this is indeed bad practice and I also would not spend effort to keep compatibility. However, if you know about it, you should at least state the incompatibility, because you will not only punish the developers (who might not even care any more), but the users (who happen to just now need this particular extension very much). Seems far-fetched? Try the Semantic TreeView extension. I think a better way to approach this would be to stick to the review process, even if it was more effort. (Although it probably would not have helped the TreeView.) Cheers, Stephan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
