[ic] Anybody using 4.7?
Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:48:31 -0400
Quoting Jim Balcom (email@example.com):
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Dan B wrote:
> DB>>My crystal ball says that 4.7 is good if you are looking at a 3 month
> DB>>implementation. But are you planning on using the stock foundation
> DB>>template? If so, the foundation template will be very different in 3
> DB>>months than what it is right now. So if you start customizing foundation
> DB>>now, you might want to do so in a way that would allow you to easily "port"
> DB>>your customizations to a potentially updated foundation template. E.g., I
> DB>>did it with a context diff of the entire catalog directory when I was
> DB>>working in 4.5.x.
> I'm not sure that this is at all critical.
> As I understand it, a store is nothing more than a bunch of templates
> and ICTags that have been put together in such a way as to create a
> store that is of your liking.
> Since it is nothing more than groups of ICTags and templates, they will
> be supported in all future versions of IC (although this, that, or the
> other tag may be dropped through obsolescence.)
This is true. One of our tests is to make sure the Simple, Barry, Basic,
and Construct templates work -- without modification.
Of course UI extensions and additions may not be supported by
those catalogs, but the front-end should work just fine. And basic
administration via the UI, i.e. editing tables and such, should work.
I have indeed tested all of those with 4.7.x, and they appear to run
Red Hat, Inc., 131 Willow Lane, Floor 2, Oxford, OH 45056
phone +1.513.523.7621 fax 7501 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Unix version of an Outlook-style virus:
It works on the honor system. Please forward this message to everyone
you know, and delete a bunch of your files at random.