On 4 Dec 2003, at 02:22, Unico Hommes wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: donderdag 4 december 2003 11:03 To: Cocoon-Dev Subject: Compatibility Issues with 2.2
I'm a little bit concerned about compatibility between 2.1 and 2.2. Now, imho every component developed for 2.1 should also work in 2.2 without requiring to change the code - recompiling is acceptable. There are of course two exceptions to this rule: a) if you are using deprecated code b) if you are using some private code/internals that you shouldn't have used.
Now with this great move to fortress we changed Composable to Serviceable and Recyclable to Resettable. The first move (C-->S) has been done in a compatible way as we introduced new abstract classes that replace the "composable" abstract classes with "serviceable" versions. That's ok.
But, the move from Recyclable to Resettable has not been done in this way and will break a lot of components! E.g. AbstractXMLProcuder has been changed from Recyclable to Resettable, so every component inheriting from that one will break! That's bad. I really think this move Recyclable to Resettable is nonsense. It has no advantage (while Composable to Serviceable has). It's only this "we need to choose the correct name" thing. Now, Fortress must support Recyclable anyway - otherwise it'S not compatible to ECM (I guess Fortress does so anyway), so I'm +1 on still using Recyclable. This is a) more painless and b) more compatible.
WDYT?
+1
I never understood why Resettable was introduced in the first place,
aren't its semantics exactly the same as Recyclable? Why are Ressetable
or Recyclable not part of the core framework? Even if we move to
Resettable now, nothing will insure that the next big container will not
introduce yet another interface for the same functionality
+1 as well. These name/concepts dances in Avalon just make me oscillate between angry and sad.
Guess what happens to those who seek perfection: they fail, like everybody else. But they spend much more time failing than those who know they will and stop at the "worksforme" level.
But what do I know...
--Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
