Re: future of LedgerSMB

["Chris Travers" <..hidden..>]

On 1/21/07, Joshua D. Drake <..hidden..> wrote:
> > Ok, to clarify-- allowing third party add-ons, providing some
> > directional support, etc. happens today.  However, these are somewhat
> > limited in scope by the factors described above.  I would expect this
>
> And then break compatibility with those third party add-ons over and
> over? Sounds like a good way to alienate our user base.
You have a valid concern.  I think that is one of the reasons why we
want to maintain support for SQL-Ledger-like template (even if there
are syntactical variations, if one can be automatically converted from
one to the other, that is fine).

There is a problem in that there will always be users who need some
slight additional functionality.  I have to implement such for
customers at some points.  I think that there are areas where we may
provide limited assistance with foward compatibility.   However, some
clear points in terms of the limitations in this area too...

One example is the support for custom fields.  This allows for simple
per-site extensions in information stored in invoices, for example,
with limited issues of forward compatibility.  Note that there *are*
still issues of foreward compatibility, but they are not as
problematic as would be the case without this framework.

So what I am saying is that extensions are happening today and will
continue to happen.  We primarily need to be clear about what is
likely to break and that each major reliease (1.1, 1.2, etc) may break
some or all of these.  Note though as bad as this is, it is far better
than with other open source accounting apps I have seen....  Heck,
most other open source projects have similar version issues with
add-ons.  I think as long as we state which things may break
compatibility nobody can complain too much.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers