Chris Metzler wrote: > >Sorry, I'm feeling really slow (probably because it's late where I am, and > >I should go to sleep). There was a change in JSBSim configuration file > >format in going to JSBSim 2.0; that has caused a lot of aircraft that > >haven't yet been updated to not run under FG 0.9.9, and still others that > >*have* been updated to not run under earlier versions (although one can > >always hang on to an old version, I guess). But as you note > > > >The reason I'm looking at this is because you described FG as "not > >maintaining backward compatibility"; for the most part, I don't think > >that's fair to FG. I agree that the JSBSim config file change is an > >example of failing to maintain backward compatibility; but I'd claim > >that it's not breaking backward compatibility in the way you describe.
Well ... this is interesting. Somehow I missed this conversation until now. For the past year and more I have gone to great lengths to publicize the impending changes to JSBSim in this mailing list, the JSBSim mailing list, and the JSBSim newsletter. I've publicized the backward incompatibility, and the reasons for going to the new format. I've publicized that we have created a converter for going from the old format to the new. We did not "fail to maintain backward compatibility" so much as we did not *limit* ourselves by the past. This is not the first time there has been a major configuration file format change. Likely, it *will* be the last. Originally, eight years ago, the JSBSim configuration files were not rooted in XML, but were simply in a text format. We moved to XML somewhere about 2000. Some newer technologies (to me, anyhow) emerged, an industry standard began to emerge (that JSBSim helped to inspire), and some new and broad JSBSim capabilities were being added - all which dictated that there would need to be changes in the way the config files were arranged. This has all been communicated both here and in the JSBSim mailing list. Maintaining backward compatibility would have negated what we were hoping to accomplish - one of which was better formed XML config files and offloading JSBSim from much of the file parsing work by using the eXpat-based easyXML for our XML parser. Remember, were are not yet at v1.0. I wanted to make sure that we "got it right" for v1.0. There are many new capabilities that we really wanted to have. We spent a long time developing it and testing it. Some last minute adjustments presented some glitches with the config file in FlightGear, but those will soon be a thing of the past, and we'll be dealing with a more stable, more capable, JSBSim. Hang in there. Jon ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
