johan.tibell at gmail.com
Sat Feb 2 13:34:18 EST 2008
On Feb 1, 2008 3:36 PM, Bulat Ziganshin <bulat.ziganshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Ketil,
> Friday, February 1, 2008, 4:29:02 PM, you wrote:
> >> may be it's too draconian restriction but i proposed just to use new
> >> library in the new code.
> > For backwards compatibility, I agree it would be preferable to retain
> > the current default implementation, but opinions appear to differ.
> > Whatever.
> the problem is not abstract "backward compatibility" but programs that
> switches from the old lib to the new one. they should get exactly the
> old services for old names - in order to not rewrite program
Couldn't we handle backward compability by having say a 1.x line and a
2.x line of a library and push fixes to both? I'm afraid that
libraries will turn into a mess eventually if they must support all
old software in new versions.
More information about the Libraries