Re: Changes to CForms in 2.1.11-dev

[Jeremy Quinn]

Thanks for your support Carsten.

On 3 Jan 2007, at 11:43, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

Ralph Goers wrote:

Jeremy,

Does this break binary compatibility? Some of the changes sound like
users who upgrade from 2.1.10 to 2.1.11 may have to modify their
application?  If so, I see that as a problem.

While I usually agree with these statements, I think/hope that the

when upgrading. With over 150 dependencies, upgrading a Cocoon
application and hoping for binary compatibility is very very brave.


past). If you upgrade from 2.1.8 to 2.1.9 you might now what a pain it
is as mostly everything in cforms changed.
Jeremy's lastes changes sound to me like minor changes and as they are
well documented I see no real problem with.

If we want to go the 100% compatiblity path, the only option is to do
changes like these in 2.2...

benefit of these changes is much higher than the inconvenience you get. For a long time we try to tell our users to recompile their applications The other point is that we did such changes (and noone complained in the

Which is not an option atm as they both share these effected blocks.



But honestly, I worked very hard to minimise the impact !!

best regards

Jeremy

If this project cannot innovate and move forward, it will become a retirement home ;)

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature