Lloyd L Chambers wrote:
> Bill,
>
> My overarching comment is that V3 is such a substantial departure from
> V2 that I don't think that perfect compatibility is a worthwhile goal.
Perfect compatibility is always a worthwhile goal, rarely achieved.
> Second, internal changes drive changes in the management APIs and make
> it really ugly for clients seeking to manage applications (eg new apps
> all go under <applications> vs in various other places). There is zero
> chance of remaining compatible there and attempting it would be really
> ugly.
I understand that we're likely to suffer some incompatibilities in the
management APIs. Unfortunate, but probably the right tradeoff.
Ignoring that, I still think we can and should support running a domain
using an old domain.xml file. Yes, it's more work for us, but our
customers will appreciate it.
If you have specific cases where you think we *should* break compatibility,
bring them to CCC (perhaps after discussing them here first).