At 1:46 PM -0500 12/10/03, Allen Briggs wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 07:33:56PM +0100, Christian Limpach wrote:
>>  I don't want to specifically argue against compatibility code, I primarily
>>  want to argue for a sane way to prevent the lack of compatibility code from
>>  causing an unexplainable crash.
>
>I think it's a good idea to version the interface.  If the interface
>is versioned, then it's at least possible to have compatibility
>code in place or to, as Christian seems to be after, at least detect
>a probable incompatibility.  It seems to be a definite improvement
>over the current situation.

I agree versioning is needed.  I'm just wondering about its future
implications.  Once 2.0 is released, its SA syscall interface will need to be
supported by future COMPAT_xxx code if the SA syscall interface is ever
incompatibly modified or enhanced.

Maybe some care should taken now to make sure the new SA syscall interface
will not need such a future flag day.

Also, I'd like to see a description comparing the current SA syscall
interface to the new improved one.  There may be ways of supporting
the old programs that aren't much work.  Anyways, those syscalls
should be documented.

-- 
Matt Thomas                     email: matt@3am-software.com
3am Software Foundry              www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA              disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.