4 ms·
Don't worry, we don't expect you to migrate your existing applications to Play 2.0. The Play 1.x versions will continue to be maintained and you don't need to m
by j_baker 15y ago
Don't worry, we don't expect you to migrate your existing applications to Play 2.0. The Play 1.x versions will continue to be maintained and you don't need to move to Play 2.0. We ourselves have many Play 1.x web applications running and we will of course continue to support them
This sent shivers down my spine. Is it that hard to maintain backwards compatibility? And you would figure that if they did have to break backwards compatibility, there would be a clear migration path instead of this "Don't worry about upgrading. Just continue to use outdated versions of our software forever." attitude they seem to have. It's almost never a good idea to put yourself in the position to have to maintain two diverging versions of the same software if you can avoid it.
- markokocic 15y agoIt is not hard to maintain backward compatibility, but why be constrained with it? It is hard to evolve a library or a framework if you have to be always backward compatible. I'd rather have big disruptive incompatible major release that kinda compatible which may or may not break in production in a subtle ways.
- moondowner 15y agoReminds me of Tapestry 3 -> 4 and 4 -> 5. A lot of people made plugins and learnt Tapestry 3 and when 4 came out all of that was for nothing. Tapestry 5 now is a whole different story, and so far a good one.