Hrvoje Niksic writes: > Oscar Figueiredo <Oscar.Figueiredo(a)di.epfl.ch&gt; writes: > > > But I wonder if it's really worth cluttering the code with such a > > compatibility hack when nobody will actually need it as soon as EUDC > > an W3 are updated. I agree compatibility *is* a MUST for features > > that are widely used. I believe the LDAP API currently is not. > > I agree with you. Backward compatibility is a good thing, but it is > not required in all cases. This looks like hand-waving to me. We don't know how much the existing API is being used. That's why we should adopt a philosophy of never breaking the API once it has been released. I could understand the "we can probably get away with it" excuse if maintaining compatibility were difficult. But this is easy. How are we going to maintain compatibility when it is difficult to do so, when we won't even insist on it when it is easy?