[hunchentoot-devel] Request methods suffixed with * -- not backwards compatible?

[Cyrus Harmon]

On thing that could be done would be to introduce the *'ed symbols  
into a maintenance release of the old hunchentoot such that calls to  
say (script-name) in the current codebase can then be (script-name*)  
which should work with the new regime.

that might help ease the transition. just a thought...

cyrus

On Sep 1, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Edi Weitz wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 21:51:20 +0530, "Chaitanya Gupta" <mail at chaitanyagupta.com 
> > wrote:
>
>> Does it have to break so badly?
>
> Yes.  Except that I wouldn't call it "break".  Generally, I think it
> is better to introduce several incompatible changes at once than to do
> it piecemeal with every release.
>
>> I don't see the *-suffixed versions giving any real advantage, and
>> the slot accessors can just be renamed to something else --
>> e.g. request-get-parameters, etc. -- instead of currently exported
>> symbols.
>
> We thought about this as well and eventually decided to go this way.
> One of the goals of the new release is a clearer CLOS-based model of
> the request/response phase and we think that the names should reflect
> this.  I'm usually trying to be as backwards-compatible as possible
> (mind you, I have to update my web apps as well!), but sometimes it
> simply isn't possible.
>
> As Hans said, if you think the new release doesn't buy you anything,
> you are free to stick with the previous one.  You can even have both
> for the price of one.  (Special offer, will only last until
> Halloween!)
>
> Cheers,
> Edi.
> _______________________________________________
> tbnl-devel site list
> tbnl-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel