[ic] "Interchange 6"? Really?

Peter peter at pajamian.dhs.org
Thu Sep 29 20:54:17 UTC 2011

On 30/09/11 09:39, Paul Jordan wrote:
> I understand and agree. Features and stability are implied. Backwards
> compatibility however is something I think we are all willing to pay
> for. So don't let cost delay that, just keep us informed of any plan
> and what it will take.
It's not cost that's delaying it right now.  We can't do backwards
compatibility until we have something to make compatible.  We have to
develop IC6 at least to a point where we can get some sort of pre-alpha
release out before we can do backwards anything.

Going back to the idea of sharing sessions, I think that could work in
the shorter term, but I also think that full BC plugins should be in the
books for the longer term.  Interchange now uses either storable or db
sessions, and dancer has Dancer::Session::Storable which can probably be
made to be compatible with the current IC5 disk-based sessions.  As for
Db sessions there is probably an easy solution for that as well, maybe
an existing Dancer::Session module, or we can always write one to have
dancer sessions compatible with the db.


More information about the interchange-users mailing list