Re^4: RFC: CGI::Uploader V 2.90

in reply to Re^3: RFC: CGI::Uploader V 2.90_01
in thread RFC: CGI::Uploader V 2.90_01

I see your point. I was concerned that the changes would be assessed in a tiny-point by tiny-point manner, which would obscure the view of the overall redesign. Also, I want people using the previous version to stop and think about their app design, not just expect that a couple of lines need to be changed. That's why the version has jumped to 2.90* in preparation for release as V 3.

Comment on Re^4: RFC: CGI::Uploader V 2.90_01

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: RFC: CGI::Uploader V 2.90_01 by Zen (Deacon) on Dec 12, 2008 at 19:08 UTC
If you have rewritten and broken backwards compatibility, and you don't know of/don't care about the migration of existing users (I hear you saying, if it doesn't work then their design is bad and thus their fault), why not make it a new module entirely or a subclass? I'd be upset if I upgraded a module and found it was wildly different, requiring me to rewrite my app if I wanted to use it.	[reply]

In Section Meditations