MailScanner version 4.65.3 andperl-MailTools-2.02-1.el4.rf HOWTO

[Peter Farrow]

 >>In many cases maintaining 100% backwards
compatibility is not feasible.

I disagree, in cases such as libraries which are inherently, by design,  
to be called from other software, backwards compatibility is ESSENTIAL.

Making a library not backwards compatible is basically lazy and there is 
no reason for it...you make everyone else work to modify the existing 
code base rather make your library work as it did.

If you can't make it backwards compatible, write an extension library, 
if your code is insecure fix it. but keep the way it works.

In many cases if you break compatibility in a library you just delay 
(indefinitely or otherwise) its uptake and acceptance as we have seen on 
this very list.


P.


Gerard wrote:
> On Sunday December 09, 2007 at 07:38:48 (AM) Randal, Phil wrote:
>
>   
>> Half the problem is perl module authors who don't give a damn about
>> backwards-compatibility.
>>     
>
> I think that is being a bit harsh. In many cases maintaining 100% backwards
> compatibility is not feasible. This becomes rapidly apparent when an update
> deals with a security problem for instance. Most authors make allowances for
> end users when possible; however, that is not always possible. Software
> development is an on gong process. To expect it to simply sit idle while
> end users catch up is ridiculous.
>
> A software developer makes a choice as to how he develops his product. An end
> user has a choice as to whether or not he/she wishes to use said product. If
> the end user declines to make his/her system compatible with the product they
> are trying to utilize, then they have in fact made a conscious decision to not
> use said product.
>
> If no users could maintain a system that was compatible with the authors
> product, then a case could be make that the software author's requirements
> were not reasonable. However; when the actual number of end users who are
> affected  is minute, and mostly of their own conscious decision, blaming a
> software author is ludicrous.
>
> By the way, I was not aware that 'perl module authors' were being reimbursed
> for their efforts. Since they apparently are doing on their own dime, they can
> pretty much do as they wish with their product. No one is excluded from
> writing their own module and having it included in the Perl offerings.
>
> Just my own 2¢.
>
>
>   


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the Enhancion system Scanner
and is believed to be clean.
http://www.enhancion.net