On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote:
> > This is, technically, a compatibility break. On the other hand, there > appear to be vast numbers of smartphone applications that currently depend > on undefined behavior and will suddenly stop working if we don't make this > change. > > So the question to you, gentle reader, is should we make this change, and > break backwards compatibility, albeit in a very obscure way, or should we > be > hard-nosed and force hundreds or perhaps thousands of smartphone > application > developers fix their programs? > > A thought came to me. Are we talking about recompiling thousands of application or just about applications that use sqlite with some other way (dynamic linking or managed layer) ? If the latter (and this is possible the case for example for managed-coded platforms such as Android), isn't it better to introduce a define for the new functionality that doesn't exists in the source, but the developers of the platform should add it to makefile in order to this new feature to take effect at once for all these thousand applications? I don't think the change itself is bad, the problem is that "minor change syndrome" will never die and life teaches me this again and again :) Max Vlasov _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
