Forward compatibility is a myth, it doesn't exist.
I would tend to agree. However, the degree of compatability and the time spans in questions are under the development team's control. It may, at some point, become more important to ensure continuity than to perfect things. Extreme example: In Plone the core Plone product is called CMFPlone. It pisses Alexander off. Should we rename it 'Plone' and thus break every product that ever imported from CMFPlone? Should we make a jungle of aliases and deprecation warnings? Or should we live with our mistakes? In this case, the benefit is marginal and the potential confusion and breakage is high. That trade-off point moves with time, though, as the more major parts of the framework become "right" and as the user base increases. However, that same user base will not increase beyond those who are so well-informed that they know what they're getting themselves into, if the software gets a reputation for breaking your code.
I guess the question is, how far along that curve is Zope 3? How far along does it want to be?
Martin -- (muted) _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
