[ic] "Interchange 6"? Really?

Paul Jordan paul at gishnetwork.com
Fri Sep 30 05:17:31 UTC 2011

> 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.

10 years or so. You are one of the posters I always read because you're a 
clever guy.

>> 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.

IC 5.x will last another 10 years. That knowledge changes nothing - it's 
possible the issue doesn't apply to you. Like I said, I don't have 
engagements or projects lasting less than indefinite. I'm not the type of 
consultant that has a lot of clients, I have little clients but I do 
absolutely everything for them. I am also not the type of consultant that 
will charge for migration like this.

If I see that a path is going to turn into a clusterf**k 3 years down the 
line, I'd rather find an alternative now because I don't need the grief. And 
by alternative, I mean find a company to take over the systems.

>> 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.

Let's say you have something larger than IC Admin. Let's say that client is 
always adding to it and changing it - there is never not work. Where oh 
where would you find an opportunity to get that always changing 5, into 6, 
where, as 6 implies will open up a bunch of new opportunities and plugins? 
If they cannot coexist, then It stands to reason that I'll have portions of 
every facet in 5 or 6. Well, we have show entry in this system, so log in, 
but the new feature to enroll in status reminders is in this system, so log 
in there, then admins login to manage ABC over there and log in to manage 
XYZ over there... That might have been acceptable in an online system circa 
1926, but dude, it's 2009, get with the times.

Simple point: How can you convert what always changes? Your answer is not 
converting? Does that not paint oneself into a stated lesser opportunity, 
while costing the same? I cannot imagine how this can elude someone. I am 
not at all smart, but this just seems like such an obvious issue.

Why would we settle for no backwards compatibility *and* no coexistance when 
we can have one of those if we try?

>> 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.
> -Jeff

I was probably reacting to Jon's early reply of doubting (playing down?) 
Peter's backwards compatibility and or coexistance statement.  You could be 
right. In my view, if I didn't push this, we might receive coexistance a 
year later than we might have now. That year represents a lot of redundant 
time and money for me.

I think Jon and Peter understand where I am coming from. I am willing to put 
down money and get others interested whenever there is a clear idea of what 
is needed. Session sharing sounds like a silver bullet. The sooner we know 
the sooner we can all start setting money aside for it.


More information about the interchange-users mailing list