Sounds like a fine approach, +1 from me.


Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 09.07.2008 10:45:35 Max Berger wrote:

Jeremias Maerki schrieb:
Am I the only one concerned about backwards-compatibility here?
No. I am also concerned about backwards-compatibility, but in a
different way:

This change changed the semantics without changing the API, therefore
code still compiled, but crashed (such as the bug I encountered). This
is a type of api change I am not happy with.

What would be ok with me is if the interface had changed (in this case,
the signature of the functions). My code would no longer compile, and
I'd have to prepare a new plugin for the new version (which i currently
have to do anyways).

My favorite solution would be: Provide the new semantics with a new
signature (or method name), and keep the old one as "deprecated" for at
least 1 release (Then all plugin developers have enough time to adjust),
then remove it.

+1 to that approach. I volunteer to do the necessary changes if we reach
a consensus.


Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to