We could do "both" for a period of time, but maintaining two seperate
interfaces (that perform the same functions) becomes more and more
troublesome after time.
But there would definitely be a transition period (details to be worked
out).
:)
Charles Daminato
OpenSRS Product Manager
Tucows Inc. - chuck@tucows.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org
> [mailto:owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org]On Behalf Of Phillip Beazley
> Sent: July 17, 2002 11:48 AM
> To: Charles Daminato
> Cc: discuss-list@opensrs.org
> Subject: RE: Low Priority Request
>
>
> At 11:40 AM 7/17/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >We're looking into MANY enhancements to the RWI including layout, logic
> >processing, error handling (e.g. rebuilding the page and
> populating the form
> >with errors highlighted instead of simply saying "error" and
> forcing you to
> >go back a page), and other tidbits.
>
> Sounds great! :)
>
> >It's a big project though, and our timelines are currently
> unknown. Since
> >many resellers rely on the RWI to grab data [1] (many even automagically
> >with Curl or LWP/SSLeay) we have to ensure we either do a slow
> transition or
> >attempt to keep backwards compatability (which will make major updates
> >difficult, but we'll work it out)
>
> Ahh yeah. Well, how about a leaving that one the way it is for this
> purpose and having a separate one for human consumption? Very little
> additional work involved and you wouldn't have to worry about backwards
> compatibility on the "new" one. In fact, make it extremely well
> known that
> the new interface should not be scripted against and would be
> done at their
> own risk.
>
>
> --
> Phillip Beazley
> FutureSights -- Website Hosting, Development & E-commerce
> Visit http://www.futuresights.com/ or call 727-578-9600.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:20 EDT