Some time ago Dave Cragg wrote:
>> The version of libUrl (1.1a3) currently being distributed with >> the Rev 2.5 beta (engine 2.6.1) is not backwards compatible with >> earlier engines. This is because of syntax added to support >> secure sockets in https URLs.
Can older versions of libURL be used with newer engines (without support for new features, of course)?
>> I plan to make future updaters aware of the engine version, and >> install the appropriate version. However, this might not be >> enough to keep confusion away. >> >> I'm not sure if the plan is to release new MC IDEs with each engine >> release (if so, then there mau be no problem), but I'm guessing >> people are hoping to be able to use the same IDE over a range of >> engine releases. There could be problems if people swap engines >> about liberally without being sure to have an appropriate version >> of libUrl in place. >> >> I can't think of an easy way round this problem right now. But if >> anyone has any thoughts, please let me know.
I'd propose that we do with libURL what we did with the Standalone Builder: have two versions included in the IDE, and use the version appropriate to the engine being used in that session.
Can anyone think of a downside to that?
For the sake of simplicity I like being able to use one IDE build across all versions of the engine from the time the IDE went open source going forward. There may be a time when that goal is no longer supportable, but as long as it is I think it's worth doing.
Any downsides to the approach for libURL proposed here?
-- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site ___________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com
_______________________________________________ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
