are you willing to do a migration for the new names.
remember there are production servers and making such changes effect a
customer base.
I really think that support of migration should be enforced for all
changes. I also think that would slow down arbitrary changes against the
design.
though I don't have a vote I am against such changes.
=========================
BJ Freeman <http://bjfreeman.elance.com>
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
<http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
Erwan de FERRIERES sent the following on 8/26/2010 2:26 AM:
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.
Cheers,
