Re: LDAP extended and revamped
Kyle Jones <kyle_jones(a)wonderworks.com> writes:
Hrvoje Niksic writes:
> Oscar Figueiredo <Oscar.Figueiredo(a)di.epfl.ch> 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.
Not hand-waving. The LDAP thing has AFAIK been more or less
experimental all this time. This is not the first change in API and
in the implementation, if memory serves 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?
I see your point. Either way, it's up to Oscar IMO.