[ic] Anybody using 4.7?
Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:37:38 -0400
Quoting Dan B (email@example.com):
> Yes, but I wasn't talking about catalog<-->ic compatibility. I was talking
> about the foundation catalog itself. My hypothesis was that foundation
> itself will have improvements that one might like to take advantage of
> between now and 4.7 release.
> For example: I started building my catalog in 4.5 somewhere. As part of
> building my catalog, I made a lot of customizations to the catalog
> files. When 4.6 was released, it had an updated catalog (with new features
> such as multiple ship-to's, bugfixes, etc.) that I wanted to take advantage
> of. However, I didn't want to re-write all the html customizations that I
> had done. That's where a method of forward-porting your own
> "customizations" becomes valuable. (Or, back-porting changes to the
> template: same effect).
Think about this. How would you have us do this? I can't see a way, and
if I can't it probably ain't going to happen.
I don't know of any program that, other than providing components as we
do with things like the templates/components/* stuff, which can do that.
If you customized those, you are probably going to have to repeat the
process to integrate any new features.
Our main changes are usually to the order features, and the method there
is to standardize on the same fields as we have.
In the payment area, one thing I am looking at is:
which would provide a standard form for each payment type based
on payment processor (more are requiring ccv2, for example). For the
dummy "PO" payment processor, you would get a form asking for po_number
instead of mv_credit_card_number; for online checks you would get the
bank routing fields, etc.
> But yes, it is amazing how well compatibility is maintained between ic
That is most of what we can hope for. I know of plenty of applications that can
claim backward compatibility to some degree, but I have seen very few claims of
forward compatibility. 8-)
Red Hat, Inc., 131 Willow Lane, Floor 2, Oxford, OH 45056
phone +1.513.523.7621 fax 7501 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk. -- unknown