Adrian You can take advantage of new technology without sacrificing backward compatibility, usually.
On the other hand, I personally think there are valid reasons for breaking most if not all laws. I cannot imagine why you couldn't depricate some class or method and leave it, if for no other reason than to remind yourself to design you're code better in the future before it is released. Skip -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Crum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: well so much for backward compatibility. (RANT) Skip, If that was a law, then the project would never move forward. OFBiz will take advantage of new technologies when they appear. Sometimes that means backward compatibility will take a back seat. -Adrian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I agree with BJ. Backward compatibility should be a LAW only broken for a > very compelling reason, note a goal. > > Skip > > -----Original Message----- > From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: well so much for backward compatibility. (RANT) > > > I just plugged my code from ver 4.0 into trunk > guess what > none of it works. > so what happend to depreciating then removing, based on releases. > Sure ver 1.5 has lots of neat things. > but shouldn't we try to conserve as much of the programming effort as we > can. > Why not add the same functions and method and leave the 1.4 compatibility > >
