[ic] "Interchange 6"? Really?
jeff at downtowndevelopmentplan.com
Thu Sep 29 20:52:36 UTC 2011
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:49:18 -0700, Paul Jordan wrote
> You are not understanding the concern - there is no "when a client
> needs a feature". If a system is always being improved - in other
> words, there is zero time in which development is not happening,
> then in order to deliver the enhancements, you will always be coding
> for IC5.x. How do you change to IC6.x in this scenario when you
> can't have parts in 5 and parts in 6? Are you suggesting spending
> another decade of time and money painting myself into a corner with IC5.x?
What I am really trying to say is that you seem almost panicked over the
announcement of IC6 but there isn't reason to be. I'm not sure how long
you've been using IC, I've been using it for about ten years. The reassurance
is that the 5.x series isn't going anywhere. Given your business
requirements, I wouldn't worry about IC6, you need to focus on your
deliverables and not what might be needed years down the road - because that
really isn't possible in this industry.
> I'd rather close up shop than have separate systems that cannot
> seamlessly interact for years at a time. That's disgusting.
A continual stream of software changes rarely results in stable interfaces.
> clients that have third party integrations have priority on those
> integrations to be duplicated in IC - to remove ourselves from
> ghetto non-interactive integrations. We have one right now that is a
> network marketing engine - not like IC affiliates, but like Avon.
> It's huge and complex. The client can't drop half a million and just
> have it done, so we have a migration schedule to bring it in IC.
> However, as soon as the switch is done, I will know it should be in
> IC6.x - that is depressing. Why? Because there is no end to the work
> we have in the new system - so when do we switch to 6.x!
You wouldn't worry about IC 6, in your situation. It's too far out to worry
about and IC5 has proven long-term availability.
> There needs to be a bridge. With a bridge, I can have seamless
> interaction from 5.x to 6.x and 6.x to 5.x and take 10 years to
> migrate if I wish. It seems to me there only needs to be session sharing.
I can't think of a specific use for session sharing, although I'm definitely
deferring to Jon's opinion here. I can't think of a clean point where I'd
want someone to move back and forth between a 5.x system and a 6.x system.
> Jon's given me hope. If they can come up with a plan and the
> community can send him gold, or beer, or virgins, or whatever, this
> will be an exciting time for everyone. If there cannot be a bridge,
> I'd have to seriously consider our future.
Again, I think you're just understandably overreacting to the announcement of
the availability of some code for IC6.
More information about the interchange-users