[ic] "Interchange 6"? Really?
paul at gishnetwork.com
Thu Sep 29 04:50:52 UTC 2011
> > Also there will eventually be a clear migration path so you can move
> > your sites over to IC6. I think that when the compatibility plugins are
> > ready it should be a little bit more difficult than upgrading from an
> > older version of IC (say IC4.8 or 5.0) to the current version. It will
> > mean having to install any base modules for IC6 and making a few
> > "compatibility" tweaks in catalogs. While a lot can happen between now
> > and then my personal belief is that there will be compatibility plugins
> > to support ITL, usertags, catalog and global config files, actionmaps,
> > jobs, etc. The base goal will be to take a current standard demo shop
> > and get it to run with minimal changes on IC6, then to add in any other
> > needed compatibility. At least that's how I see things progressing.
> That is all even more highly speculative than the plans for Interchange
> 6's central features, so I would not count on any of that unless you know
> someone who wants to fund it.
> I think it's safer to plan on having Interchange 5 and 6 handling
> different parts of the URL space for a domain as a coexistence strategy,
> which is just about as good but doesn't involve lots of engineering work
> that may or may not ever happen.
Jon, I don't know what I am talking about here - but could we fund a method to share sessions so one can continue to develop an app while recoding 5 parts into 6? It seems to me that there must be a way.
If an app has 20 areas, it's not like a client adds a new area, i.e., 21, they continue developing areas 2-6, 10-14, and add areas 21 - 24 you know what I am saying? That can be ugly if there are constant login prompts and you have to deal with lost session data.
It may be this "adapter" would solve all our problems, leting one develop in both, with degraded performance, as they move from 5 to 6.
This is quite serious to me. Consider an app that is going to take a year or more to recode and test. In that time development must continue right? So what if the client evolves a section you've already recoded? It's quite possible to have a situation where one could never finish recoding, or have to dedicate resources specifically to recode - and - pay to code portions in both IC5 and IC6 simultaneously.
IC is half the programming I do, but programming is 1/20th of the work I do. As you can imagine, rewriting a couple dozen custom Admin's would be next to impossible for me unless there was a seamless coexistence strategy.
Paying someone to do it for me would throw away most of the profit I ever made from it.
More information about the interchange-users