Christopher Oliver wrote:
At any rate, I fail to understand how a massively non-backward compatible change can be made which was not even relevant to the subject voted on.
yes please, can we discuss this again (with a final vote) as I'm not really convinced about the pros of this change.
As I understand it there was a vote to "unrestrict" the FOM, thereby removing the contracts from (2) above. AFAIK this could have been implemented easily without causing backward incompatibility in accessing the FOM from JS/Jexl/JXPath.
This change forces our users to rewrite their templates too?!?!?
Yes, it does.
