On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 06:19:48PM +0930, Jon Schutz wrote: > > I'm aware you object on principle; however I've stated very clearly why I > > believe your objections are incorrect and since you're contributing to > > Catalyst I'd ask that you follow the current Catalyst standards for > > backwards compatibility even if you disagree, just the same as you'd do > > for coding style and other matters of opinion. If I ever contribute to one > > of your projects I'll happily return the favour :) > > No problems, if that's what the Catalyst standard says; I must have > missed it. Where is it? I'd like to consult it on a number of > matters... please post the link.
s/standards/convention/ There's no written standard currently; I'd love to see somebody take a crack at writing one but I'm not sure what would need to go in it. For example, not breaking people's code in a point release wherever possible even if their code was technically the wrong thing to do is just something you -do- if you're writing production quality libraries, to me. It never occurred to me you'd need to write it down for people to realise it was a good idea. > > > > Please can you do a specific setup, with tests; I'd suggest using > > Class::Inspector to pull the list of methods and to proxy all those that > > don't currently exist in your class. > > > > Then we can have a warning included and happily throw these methods out in > > 5.80; the point is that people's code shouldn't go from "fully working" to > > "completely broken" without a stage of "still works but warns them they're > > doing it wrong" first (and note that if we'd called the method $c->_stats > > I'd agree with you that it was private and we can deprecate it at will. but > > we didn't. such is life) > > > > The fact that it's supposedly already in a stage of "completely broken" > kind of undermines that theory. > > I'm quite aware that I've spent more time debating the point than it > would have taken just to do this nugatory work, but then we wouldn't be > having this interesting discussion. Can we put a timescale on it? What > is the plan for release of 5.7013 and/or 5.80? Next week or two would be ideal; if you can't make time that soon then you need to say -now- so somebody else can fix this. -- Matt S Trout Need help with your Catalyst or DBIx::Class project? Technical Director http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/catalyst/ Shadowcat Systems Ltd. Want a managed development or deployment platform? http://chainsawblues.vox.com/ http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/servers/ _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/