Sure, the question is where?
I looked at our existing docs, and we actually document how to check for
anonymous access. But that is a little bit hidden, embedded in outdated
docs....
Regards
Carsten
On 20.07.2023 13:06, Jörg Hoh wrote:
Should we document that in this case we are not spec compliant for
backwards compatibility reasons?
Am Do., 20. Juli 2023 um 12:53 Uhr schrieb Carsten Ziegeler <
[email protected]>:
I think there is no one solution fits all here. As always it depends.
In general we should try to be spec compliant - unless there is a good
reason not to. There could be different reasons.
In this particular case, imho there is a good reason to not be
compliant. We have a huge user base and the non spec compliant behaviour
is in there for many many years. There is a chance that some of our
users rely on this behaviour. If we change it, we break our users. Which
actually happened in this case.
In addition, in this case if users are trying out our non spec compliant
method they will immediately see that it is not compliant during
development/testing.
Regards
Carsten
On 20.07.2023 12:28, Konrad Windszus wrote:
Hi,
Carsten just reverted the fix from
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-11825 in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-11974.
The fix is correct according to the Servlet Spec, but it seems some
customer rely on Sling behaving not spec compliant here.
The question is what weighs more:
1) Spec compliance to make it easier for most new/existing users as
otherwise behaviour differs from Javadoc and underlying Spec.
2) Backwards compatibility for those users who rely on this spec
incompatibility.
In my opinion I would clearly go for 1) but I would like to hear other
opinions.
Thanks,
Konrad
--
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe
[email protected]
--
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe
[email protected]
