Well, that works for me! David
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
David W. Van Couvering wrote:In my original proposal: * compatibility will be strongly encouraged but not guaranteed against previous minor versions (e.g. a 10.2 consumer works with 10.1 common classes, but a 10.3 consumer has a hard dependency on new methods, it can not work with 10.2 common classes). Perhaps I remember incorrectly, but I remember us (or enough of us) generally agreeing that gracefully dying when Y level function was required was not acceptable, as this was a regression of existing behavior. This was the "nail in the coffin" for my original proposal.Maybe I'm an optimist, but I think that a consumer of common code can always be coded to keep running (in a reduced mode) when faced with an older version of the common code. Thus I think this approach can be made to work, just start with the mindset that dying is unacceptable, rather than inevitable. Dan.
begin:vcard fn:David W Van Couvering n:Van Couvering;David W org:Sun Microsystems, Inc.;Database Technology Group email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Senior Staff Software Engineer tel;work:510-550-6819 tel;cell:510-684-7281 x-mozilla-html:TRUE version:2.1 end:vcard
