Hi, On Jan 7, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Dave Howorth wrote:
> Pedro Melo wrote: >> Attached, second version of the patch, based on feedback from >> Darren and >> Dave. > > Thanks Pedro. > > Ash sent me a PM - perhaps intended to be sent to the list? - that > explained some specific weirdness of the existing behaviour. I hadn't > understood that, so I owe an apology to both Ash and Pedro for my > comments about BOOL and TINYINT. > > But I still believe strongly that backwards compatibility is the > overriding concern. > > Ash asked me "is there anyone that actually uses and wants the current > behaviour?". In my case, the answer is "I don't know". I have a lot of > legacy code. I don't know which modules, if any, code around these > weirdnesses and would break if I upgraded SQLT. That's the point of > backwards compatibility. I understand, and personaly it wont affect me. But I still think that SQL::Translator should not be stuck in the past. Backwards compatibility is important, but it should not be the only concern. New users will be bafled why doesn't SQL::Translator supports BOOLEAN with MySQL, given that it is supported for the past 2 GA's of MySQL (4.1 and 5.0)... I still think we should stop using ENUM's for boolean, so I still prefer the first patch, but given that using server_info is something that I plan to do from now on, I'll be happy with either. Best regards, -- Pedro Melo Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/ XMPP ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use XMPP! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ -- sqlfairy-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlfairy-developers
