On Aug 26, 2010, at 3:26 AM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: > Le 26/08/2010 10:19, Scott Gray a écrit : >> Hi Erwan, >> >> Why the unnecessary changes? All that was needed to change was fix the >> ConditionObject constructor. It should have been checking for "field" and >> then falling back to "field-name" (for backwards compatibility reasons), >> there was no need to change the schemas and I think the previous attribute >> name was more consistent. >> >> And I definitely don't agree with backporting unnecessary schema changes to >> 10.04. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> HotWax Media >> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >> > Hi Scott, > > no problem for reverting on the 10.04, it's on its way. But for trunk, I > really think the new names are more consistent than the previous ones. Once > again, if this is not ok with you, then I will look at another way to make > this work.
Yes, please do revert the attribute changes, even in the trunk. There is a big backwards compatibility issue with things like this and even if we did decide to change these attribute names (which I don't think we should, there is no precedent for attribute names like these and therefore no consistency with attributes on other tags), then the Java code should accept both names so that existing code does not break. This is what I did before with the simple-method stuff when making the attribute names more consistent, and is vital when attribute names are changed. Either way, this should be discussed on the dev mailing list first. It's kind of an unpleasant surprise to have things changed like this for those who are using them, and we need a much better reason than something along the lines of "I like this other name better". If other committers were making that sort of change for things you are using, it would be pretty annoying wouldn't it? -David
