From: Bill Lear (rael_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-16 08:05:56
On Friday, June 16, 2006 at 08:45:27 (+0100) Russell Hind writes:
>Bill Lear wrote:
>>
>> Versioning is per-class, and so why would you increment the version if
>> you did not introduce forward-incompatible changes? It seems that you
>> only increment the version if you add/remove data members, reorder
>> them, or whatever. I don't really see a practical downside to having
>> the library automatically puke if you are using old code to read a
>> newer version of a class.
>>
>
>I don't expect the old version to read it successfully. The 'puke' as
>you put it at the moment is an access violation. Which basically may
>have left the process in an unstable state. I want it to 'puke' but
>with an exception that can be caught and handled gracefully. Not an
>access violation which basically means its anyones guess as to whether
>the software can run successfully. Read my original post on the matter
>again.
I understood your original post and by "puke" I obviously meant throw
an exception --- what else did you expect? A silent exit? Core dump?
Bill