> Please don't judge until we are done. We need to > first agree on our > design goals, then we can pick through > implementations. The proposal is > about agreeing to the laid out design goals, but it > is too early to say > that we are or aren't meeting them. First cuts are > never put into > production as is, and this API is no different. > Besides, even if we did > inally go with something more sweeping, to make it > acceptable under the > original agreed upon proposal, we'd have to ensure > existing apps would > be able to migrate in hours so you can be sure the > end user will have a > smooth migration. Otherwise, we'd have to move the > API to a new version. > > What we need here is cooperation and a willingness to > compromise and > follow a common path that may not be exactly what > everyone wants, but it > is what the community agreed is best for the project > and its users. My > guess is you will always think a new API goes too > far, Bob will think it > doesn't go far enough, and the rest of the developers > will lie along > that spectrum. We could either fight every step of > the way to force our > point of view, or we could work together to find a > common vision. I > think we owe it to our users to do the latter. > > Don >
I'm not judging pro or con, I'm saying that what's been proposed is not the same API to the user. Like I said before, I see the value of both sides, but API changes are going to make it harder for people like me, with large WW code bases, to switch over as soon as it's released. It remains to be seen how similar it might turn out... --------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted via Jive Forums http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=29563&messageID=57920#57920 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
