On Aug 6, 2:55 pm, Bottiger <bottig...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agree 100% > > If you are going to rewrite, best to do it soon instead of later. > > A quick look at the available applications:http://www.web2py.com/ > appliances > > There simply is not that many of them, and most are just proofs of > concept.
I have a number of private apps at my work place that I don't want to redebug next time I upgrade. Some of these apps were written a year ago and still work with the current web2py version. What is the show stopping feature that requires breaking backward compatibility? Richard > > On Aug 5, 6:38 pm, Alex Fanjul <alex.fan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Some thoughts and commentaries about major version: > > > -My question came after thinking in Armin thread > > -Most of people seems to be convinced that there is no real reason > > (big issue) that couldn't be "avoidable enough" to need to realase a non > > backward compatible major version (so I figure out we have a strong > > framework in front) > > -Only real experience people (not like me) know if there are real > > motives to consider a non backward compatible major version > > -Many people say that web2py is so young to think in "big changes in > > code", but In case it would be real motives to do a "non backward > > compatible major version", and due to the youthfulness of the framework, > > wouldn't be better to do it as soon as possible and not after some years > > with many more users and applications online? > > -In case it would be real motives to do a "non backward compatible > > major version", wouldn't you prefer to adapt your application in return > > to have a better framework (maybe more secure, flexible, better writed, etc) > > > These are only (and probably wrong) open thoughts and conjetures, so > > don't waste time in reply me... > > Alex F > > > El 04/08/2009 23:08, waTR escribió: > > > > I don't feel it is necessary to re-write anything yet. There is a lot > > > of good in it as it is. Don't just give up on it when you run into a > > > few difficulties. We are not talking about anything that won't be > > > addressed either. It is more of an issue of how it is addressed, and > > > for all the "weaknesses" in this framework, there are a hell of a lot > > > more strengths. > > > > Have patience, and don't forget this is a VERY young project. Also, > > > you may not agree with all the decisions all the time, but then no one > > > will in any framework. You can't please all the people all the time. > > > The key is to remember what brought you to this framework, and if that > > > still stands. All software has weaknesses, the question is whether it > > > is being dealt with or monitored. If it is, then one day in the near > > > future it will be addressed, but don't confuse speed of resolving all > > > problems brought up with quality solutions. Often the best solution > > > will require a lot of dialogue and a lot of analysis before > > > implementing. > > > > Also, not breaking backwards compatibility is a great rule to prevent > > > software from moving too fast. If the software breaks backwards > > > compatibility with every minor release, no one will use it because it > > > is not serious. If it breaks with every major release, no serious > > > project will use it because it would be too expensive to maintain. > > > Therefore, if all I have to do is use some added code in order to > > > solve the problem but preserve backward compatibility, then I am all > > > for it. If you have a small project that you can re-write in a day, > > > you won't care, but then I would not care about these minor issues if > > > that is all I needed it for. I am still following this framework > > > because I believe I can build something serious with it, not just a 5 > > > minute wiki AND I know I won't have to re-write everything once a > > > year. Breaking backwards compatibility is a very serious decision, and > > > I am very happy Massimo takes it VERY seriously. This attitude is what > > > will set this framework apart, and will make it deserve the title of > > > "Enterprise Framework". Otherwise, it is just another framework. > > > > If this project has to break backwards compatibility though, I would > > > hope it is done at the same time that it transitions to Python 3, as > > > that would take care of everything all at once. However, there is a > > > LOT of work to be done in assembling a list of issues and solutions > > > before that happens. So just be patient, and continue to use the > > > framework, that is how more issues can be discovered, and solutions > > > proposed. However, for today, there is no reason for even talking > > > about breaking backwards compatibility. > > > > On Aug 4, 12:00 pm, Fran<francisb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Aug 4, 7:30 pm, Pynthon<forumx...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> Yeah maybe a complete web2py 2 rewrite. With nice and better coding... > > > >> I believe this is a bad idea as we really don't want to break existing > > >> apps - this is a *key* strength of web2py& one many of it's adherents > > >> really value. This is what justifies the term 'Enterprise'. > > > >> Many of the 'issues' are easy to solve without doing so& the rest are > > >> pretty much design decisions. > > >> They are seen as key strengths for some& key weaknesses for others. > > >> Let those who see them as strengths enjoy this& if others cannot live > > >> with what they see as weaknesses, let them choose from the many other > > >> frameworks out there. > > > >> F > > > -- > > Alejandro Fanjul Fdez. > > alex.fan...@gmail.comwww.mhproject.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to web2py@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
