Handler syntax depreciation
Kevin P. Fleming
kpfleming at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Dec 4 10:57:01 PST 2003
Jamie Bennett wrote:
> Just a quick one. Looking through the source files I see allot of
> to syntax version 2.0. Is there any need to support a syntax version that
No direct need, but the code is written already.
> Surely it can't be that widely used and getting rid of references to it
> not only make the tarball smaller but would clean up allot of code. I only
> this as the company I work for have strict coding standards and we have to
> produce very maintainable and clean code. Supporting multiple syntax version
> only going to get worst as the DTD gets expanded. I propose we just support
> 2 or
> 3 iterations of the syntax (preferably 2) to keep the code clean.
The total of the code to support version 2.0 syntax is probably less
than 10K, and I don't really see that it's making the code "unclean" in
anyway. It used to be cleaner when the different syntax versions were in
different source files, but that caused code duplication and was more
difficult to maintain.
With the current releases people don't have to compile support for
syntax versions they're not going to use, and I am considering changing
the default for 1.2.0 to not compile syntax 2.0 support (although it can
still be manually enabled if desired).
Speaking of that, I think it's time to get a 1.2.0-rc1 tarball up on the
website, it's been dormant for a while...
More information about the alfs-discuss