On 21 Jan 1997, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> BR> Then leave majordomo to do only 2.x stuff -- there should be no
> BR> backwards compatibility if it takes away functionability. There were no
> BR> promises made for 2.x in that area -- why start giving them?
>
> Well, the trick to backwards compatibility is to provide as much as
> possible without sacrificing anything except time. Supporting the old
> directory structure isn't terribly hard. Supporting old-style config files
> isn't hard. Supporting majordomo.cf is tougher and I didn't really want to
> do it, but I did. But if I run into something that's significantly harder,
> I'll try to get out of it.
What I'm worrried about is functionality being passed over because of
backwards compatibility. In 1.x, I can understand it. In 2.x there's no
reason for it.
Eventually there's some point where you should no longer guarantee
backwards compatibility. If 2.0 supports 1.x konfig files but can use it's
own format and 2.1 would ONLY support (with whatever new features the
programmer had in mind) 2.0 konfig files, then that sounds fine.
> BR> Well, the permissions sounds very good -- but is the wrapper still
> BR> needed?
>
> (use strict is in effect, too.) No bloody wrapper. Some people may still
Perfect! It was causing too many of the average user's problems!
Thanks...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Brock Rozen | brozen@webdreams.com | http://www.webdreams.com/~brozen |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
|
|
