On 9/18/05, Dave Howorth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aaron Trevena wrote: > > This (improved model, backwards compatiblilty, etc) is pretty much > > exactly what I want to do and I had a horrible feeling it was going to > > involve a lot of work (and worse still much of it for me!). > > One of the issues I still don't understand is backwards compatibility. > In this case, we're talking about removing at least two external > modules. I think it's a good idea to do so. But how does somebody who's > written a plugin for CGI::Untaint use it in the new scenario, for > example? Or could I use my hacked about AsForm with it?
Rather than removing the external modules I thought it would be worth replacing them with improved internal clones. Essentially renaming, patching/fixing and adding herbs and spices so that they make best use for stuff like Maypole Metadata, etc. For instance if you are doing Foo::Bar->untaint(text => ...), it would be nice to be able to say something is readonly. > Given that there's no spec about what parts of Maypole constitute public > interface and what is private implementation, it seems to me that > bacwards compatible changes will need to be restricted to code within > single functions. Even then we'll need to be extremely careful. Moving some modules into Maypole's class/package hierarchy would mean you keep backwards compatibility by forking the code. > Or look at the removal of the 'naughty code' that I think we're all > agreed is a good idea. There was no bug report, it's not broken AFAIK. > It's just ugly. But the change breaks a test, so it's clearly not > backwards compatible. I think that test may be broken and it is easier to maintain and understand with the fix applied, particularly bearing in mind we should soon add FastCGI support. > I thing all these changes are good ideas. But they're not backwards > compatible by my understanding of the term. So that's one of my > difficulties with this issue. (My other difficulty is the _need_ for > backwards compatibility, but I've bitten the bullet on that) They are pretty much backwards compatible, they shouldn't affect anything in the wiki, tutorials or manual. My main concern is that backwards compatibility with the help and documentation available remains and that people should be unaffected unless they are advanced user (who can usually look after themselves or at least check the changelog). Cheers, A. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ Maypole-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maypole-devel
