[OT] Robert, had you tried the update helper to help out with this migration?
On Oct 12, 2:34 am, Robert Kieffer <bro...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regarding "added weight of compatibility stuff I will never use", one > of the main reasons I proposed this is that allows devlopers to decide > on a per-case basis when and where to support backward compatibility. > I.e. if the code .vs. benefit analysis doesn't make sense, don't > support it. > > T.J, You make a good point about testing. Testing complexity to be > part of the benefit analysis. > > I provided the delay() method above as one example of where this might > make sense. But let me point to another example where I think > conditional backward compatibility would have been tremendously > valuable: The Hash API change that happened in v1.6. This broke a > _lot_ of code, and was a significant hurdle to teams that wanted to > upgrade. At Zenbe, the 1.6 release put us in a real bind - it had a > lot of exciting new features, features that we desperately wanted > (e.g. real subclassing support), but we simply couldn't afford the > time required to identify and fix the 100's of dependencies we had on > Hash in our code base. We ended up using a monkey-patched version of > 1.6 on our production site for several months, while using the "real" > version of 1.6 in development and testing. It would have been great > to have a switchable compatibility option in that case. > > I'll risk shooting my own idea in the foot by pointing out that the > biggest issue with this idea is not what effect it has on the code, > but rather slippery slope it starts down. Once you start providing > Compatibility support for one or two features, users are going to > start clamoring for it all over the place. There should probably be > some firm guidelines about what factors decide whether or not a > feature supports this, and for what versions Compatibility support > will be provided for. (E.g. "Compatibility is only offered for the > previous dot-release" or something like that.) > > On Oct 11, 2:46 pm, Allen Madsen <bla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I have to agree with T.J. In addition to complexity, there is also a > > concern for size. If I am using the newest version of the code, why > > would I want the added weight of compatibility stuff I will never use? > > > Allen Madsenhttp://www.allenmadsen.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
