Well, personally I'm not too happy with the direction BXMLSerializer is
taking things... from UI-centric to UI-agnostic. But I think I've made
this argument in other messages so I'm not going to get into it here.
I guess the best compromise I can think of is to keep WTKX as an extension
of BXML and make WTKXSerlializer a subclass of BXMLSerializer. Not just
for backwards compatibility, but for future development of WTKX.
Cheers,
Michael
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Greg Brown wrote:
Given the recent changes to the resource bundle naming conventions, I am
wondering if trying to preserve backwards compatibility with
WTKXSerializer is sort of an empty gesture. Anyone using resources is
going to have to rename those files anyways (it didn't look like there
would be an easy way to support both .json and .resources extensions in
the Resources class). So I'm not sure how much value preserving only
support for .wtkx files will offer.
My vote would be to include a detailed 1.5 -> 2.0 migration guide in the README
or RELEASE-NOTES that explain specifically what has changed and what needs to be
updated.
Thoughts?
