On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mariano > > I think that evolution and migration is key if we want to use fuel for > loading code. > This is why in MCZ you have always the source files. In case of trouble. > Exactly! and even more, you NEED the code if you are managing code ;) so you need it always, in case of problem or not. > > It is important to use the current situation as case for evolution. > I like the idea of igor of having class that represent different versions. > > We will think about it. > Stef > > On Oct 11, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Philippe Marschall wrote: > > > On 10/08/2011 10:42 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > >> s > >> > >>>> > >>>> This is IMHO more than necessary for Fuel to become a production ready > >>>> serializer and I'd say Fuel is now "old enough" to become such :) > >>> > >>> Yes. > >>> Now what I would love is that even if fuel changes that the evolution > of > >>> information > >>> is taken into account because like that it will be exercised for real. > >>> > >>> > >> No, that's impossible, and if posible, it is not worth it. Migrating > from an > >> old format to a new one is extremelly complicated and innecessary. The > >> easiest way to solve this is to take the correct version of Fuel, > >> materialize the graph from the stream, load new version of Fuel, and > >> seriaize it again. That the easiest, more secure, and more practical > >> approach I can see. > > > > That is horribly naïve an excludes fuel from a lot of use cases. You > > can't use fuel for "archiving" objects outside of the image because you > > will never know whether you will be able to read them in again because > > the format changes. You will always need to have "live" ones in the > image. > > > > That means you can't use fuel for anything Monticello related because > > you may never be able to load those versions in again because the file > > format has changed in the mean time. > > > > Cheers > > Philippe > > > > > > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
