David,
I think in most languages, even if a structure is deprecated, they
would still support bug fixes and what not.
In general regarding releases,
1. I agree we should fix the Derby/PostgreSQL issue. Did you have a
chance to look at it? If not we'll try to get to it at some point.
2. I agree that maintaining stable-feature releases would be more
work, but that's something I'm willing to help with. I don't want to
impose too much additional burden on everybody else. I think if we
could just all share more information about what we're working on,
that'd be great.
Si
On Jul 27, 2006, at 11:28 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
> From: "David E Jones" <
[hidden email]>
>
>
>>
>> Okay, I think I see what you are saying. I'm not sure if I like the
>> change though... If we do it for field-to-field we would really need
>> to do it for field-to-env, env-to-field, and env-to-env. My hope for
>> those fields is to get them totally removed from the simple-method
>> language. They are already "deprecated" and you'll get log warnings
>> if you use them. They are really old and stem from the days before
>> the FlexibleStringExpander and FlexibleMapAccessor were implemented.
>
> In this spirit it may me good that everybody seing these deprecated
> warning change these calls for set calls. This will clear the
> log a littlle bit
>
> TIA
>
> Jacques
>
>> I may be missing something though... If there is a reason I'm missing
>> why we really can't let this dead dog lie, please let me know.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Jul 27, 2006, at 2:35 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>>
>>> The particular issue is marked as resolved by re-writing the
>>> service in question, but the patch for field-to-field typecasting
>>> was never put back into minilang, so other services would break.
>>>
>>> Si
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 27, 2006, at 1:29 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 24, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On the issue of stability:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I propose that we put this
http://jira.undersunconsulting.com/>>>>> browse/OFBIZ-500 back into the main code base. It addressed a
>>>>> typecast issue with field-to-field.
>>>>
>>>> I just took a look at this issue and it seems to be closed and
>>>> acknowledged as resolved. Is there something I'm missing?
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>
Locked
