Home : Products : Gossamer Links : Discussions :

Products: Gossamer Links: Discussions: Re: [pugdog] LSQL features & upgrade compatibility: Edit Log

Here is the list of edits for this post
Re: [pugdog] LSQL features & upgrade compatibility
If a file is upgraded by Alex, and it's not upgraded by the installer, then it may not work together with the new release.
So I see in advance, that Alex will not accept this config_preserve file feature request.
Why would you say that? Currently, there are a number of files that are preserved, ignored, or otherwise not modified during an install, and as links gets more complicated, this becomes more important.
I didn't analize the installer, yet. If you know more about the installer, I have to accept your opinion.

A number of suggestions have been made over the years on how to allow significant user modifications to the site, without losing them during upgrades, and it's something Alex should seriously consider. The "core" libraries can be updated, without needing to make changes to other scripts.
Yes, "core" libraries can be updated, without needing to make changes to other scripts, until the inputs & outputs are in the same format, and this behaviour is not changed with the upgrade for none of the functions.

Sometimes, rewriting SiteHTML.pm _is_ a better option, even if it has to be done for each upgrade.
I just mentioned, that you are free to modify, but it's not a good idea to suggest/engourage hacking of any core module. Hacking some files _may_ affect plugin working, so may result unnecessary plugin support problems, if hacking some LSQL files will be usual and/or encouraged. I just want to avoid such problems.

SiteHTML.pm ... User.pm, is another file that seemed to be, where site-specific routines could be placed
Probably. But in Links 2.0, I always wanted a to have an upgrade-safe solution, to be able to add mods without conflicts, or by managing conflicts. Something that nowadays plugins & plugin installers can do and somewhat handle in Links SQL.
Therefore I don't really like hacks, and I try to avoid them maximally. Thanks to the plugin system, there were really just a few things I was not able to solve with the plugin system.

Anyway. The fact that I would not like to encourage users to hack LinkSQL, would not necessarily mean, that Alex thinks the same. It's possible that Alex will support your idea.

BTW: Could we split this thread & move some posts to a separate thread, under better subject?
(From post #16, except #17 which still belongs to this thread)

Best regards,

Paid Support
from Webmaster33. Expert in Perl programming & Gossamer Threads applications. (click here for prices)
Webmaster33's products (upd.2004.09.26) | Private message | Contact me | Was my post helpful? Donate my help...

Last edited by:

webmaster33: Apr 8, 2003, 3:13 PM

Edit Log: