--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How does it do this? I understand that an old harness will not be > able > > to parse it - it will be upset by the sub-plans and the dotted test > > numbers) > > Yep. By "backwards compatible" I mean you can feed the new TAP to an > old > harness and it will still be able to get the basic pass/fail > information out > of it. > > > but if we know we're running under an old harness then we can > > just fall back to plan-at-the-end and diagnostics. > > Currently old harnesses do not identify what version of TAP they > understand. > We don't even HAVE TAP versions yet. If we have to upgrade them > all... > well then they'd be new harnesses. So I'd like to avoid breaking TAP > compatibility without a very good reason which is why I'm giving so > much > pushback and searching for ways to do it with the TAP producer.
I completely agree with Schwern on this one. We've been using TAP for a long time and until someone comes up with an extremely compelling reason to break all of the old TAP parsers and which we have significant agreement on, I'm terribly reluctant to extend the TAP::Parser to handle this. Old TAP parsers need to read new TAP and still generate reasonable output. There are several ways we could accomplish the same thing without break backwards compatibility. Let's explore those. Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book -- http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Perl and CGI -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
