On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Julien BLACHE <jb at jblache.org> wrote: > "m. allan noah" <kitno455 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > >> My biggest concerns are those raised by Olaf- how do the two versions >> coexist. I will bet you that the solution we come up with will be >> EXACTLY the same, whether we add your new function or not. So, i want > > No, if we go and add an optional status function, this problem does > not exist. I covered that in my mail. > > If we go that route and do a 1.1, the dll backend can load *.so.1* and > be done with it. If it's a 1.1 backend, it will have the function > defined, nothing more to do, if it's a 1.0 backend it won't have it > and dll wires up a stub instead. All backends in 1.1 define the > function, a stub is used for all the backends that are unmaintained > today. > > There, done, no problem. Total backward compatibility with anything > built against 1.0. No change in the behaviour of the current API > calls. Some work to do on saned/net as the new call needs to added and > the version check needs to be extended a bit (1.1 client cannot talk > to a 1.0 saned or needs to wire up a stub call for the new call). No > big issue, takes time and testing.
but- as you have said several times in this thread, what about frontends that link to the backend, bypassing dll? They might get a frame-type they have never heard of, all while the backend says it follows major version 1, which the standard says will never happen. allan -- "The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
