Daniel Fagerstrom wrote: > > More seriously, it was an RT, I wanted to hear what people think and if > there was any problems that I hadn't thought about. I will of course > cast a vote before commiting anything. We could possibly provide some > optional back compability mode that puts the environment abstraction > objects in the object model. > > But I would suppose most users would be happy to get rid of this extra > complication. > Don't get me wrong, I'm not absolutely against ditching the abstraction (see my last mail in the thread), but I think from the response so far, there is no big cheering group out there dancing around singing "yes, that's exactly what we wanted for years". So I think, unless there are really some more users saying, "yes, please, do that" we should simply not do it. For the versioning, we could for example release a 2.2 soon, change the environment abstract after that and then release a 2.3 later this year.
Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
