[dancer-users] [Dancer-dev] dancer_major_version

[Alexis Sukrieh]

Actually, the whole thing is that dancer_version (or major_version) should
clearly not be used for plugins to check their compatibility with the core.
Actually, what plugin should do is to use api_version.

Simple example :

Dancer 1.9999_01 is "Dancer 1" is you look at the VERSION (whatever method
you choose) but it's actually "Dancer 2" regarding its core.

So to summarize:

  - dancer_major_version should be removed, it has been added in a rush,
while releasing 1.9999_01 but was a mistake because of the reason explained
above
  - api_version should be used whenever something needs to check its
compatibility with the core


2012/12/25 damien krotkine <dkrotkine at gmail.com>

>
> Hi,
>
> As I understand, Alexis did a dev release of dancer2. The version is
> 1.9999_01 or something like that.
>
> People and plugins currently uses int(dancer_version) to discover if it's
> running under Dancer 1 or Dancer 2.
>
> int(1.0000_01) emits a warnings, so to work around that, a ne keyword has
> been added :
>
> dancer_major_version, which returns what's on the left of the dot in the
> version number.
>
> Fine, except that :
> - this keyword has not been added to Dancer v1, so plugins using
> dancer_major_version will break under Dancer 1
> - no advertizing has been made on to what plugins should use (ie continue
> using int() or use the new keyword)
>
> What's the best solution ?
>
> In my opinion we can :
> 1/ Release a new Dancer 1, and ask people to use dancer_major_version and
> require the latest Dancer 1 release (or Dancer 2) : long and cumbersome as
> we need to potentially modify plugins and contact users and so all
>
> 2/ remove dancer_major_version, and change dancer_version so that it
> returns the version without the _xx at the end. Simple, doesn't need to
> release D1 again, and nothing to change in plugins.
>
> 3/ any idea ?
>
> As you may guess, I'm a big fan of solution 2. If you all agree
> (especially sukria, as he added dancer_major_version, and maybe he had an
> other reasons for that), I can make the change.
>
> In my opinion, the longer we stay in the current situation
> (dancer_major_version only in D2), the more dangerous it is
>
> dams.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dancer-dev mailing list
> dancer-dev at dancer.pm
> http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/pipermail/dancer-users/attachments/20121227/fd968665/attachment.htm>