Request for including a version number in every xojo_code file

This is a request that seems to mostly affect RS’s own handling of matters, but since there’s a history of Xojo (RS) introducing changes into their VCP format that caused backward compatibility issues that could have been provided (as I’ve proven occasionally on the mailing lists, some of you might remember), I thought it’s important that everyone understands the implications of RS currently not including a version number in every file they write in VCP format.


Do others support this motion? Then I’m happy to give some of my “Favorites” points to this case, if others would do as well. If no one cares, though, I won’t go fighting windmills on my own :wink:

But we do. We write the current IDE version to the manifest file. When you open it in an older version, we warn you.

And just to be clear, the fact that older versions of the IDE WILL open newer projects in most cases, is a happy accident, not a supported feature. For the most part, when adding a feature or fixing a bug we don’t consider “is this going to affect users’ ability to open projects in older versions,” because we simply can’t. Doing so would severely hamper our ability to move forward.

We have been taking huge strides in fixing the bugs in the VCP file format lately, and that means that Xojo projects just don’t open well in the older IDEs.

Uh, you seem to not have read the fail cases I outlined in the report, did you?

Let me repeat it here: They issue is that the IDE does not always write EVERY file, so some files may end up being written by a different IDE version that the manifest. How isn’t that obvious?

And since that can happen, there may be files in the project that do NOT match the format that the manifest claims, and that could lead to unforeseen issues, and that’s why I suggest to make this safer by adding a version to EVERY file.

Thomas, well said, but a bit harsh :wink:
When it is obvious that a point didn’t get across to other people, I tend to put the fault with myself for not explaining it well enough.
Then I try again to explain it in a way I hope will make it obvious.
I know it can be frustrating, but I guess that’s a disadvantage for people whose first language isn’t English.
We always have to try a bit harder to explain things it seems :slight_smile:

Yes, Dirk, good points. Greg, no offense meant. I’ve had a few aggravating days this weekend, trying hard to deal with the ever-changing vcp beast, including being quite upset about being accused of violating the EULA when I tried to be helpful, and I’ve not calmed down yet again.

The “perceived” issue with VCP isn’t one.
Old IDE’s won’t use items they don’t understand.

But why is this reported as a bug ? It isn’t a bug.
Please report things as the right type.

[quote=30802:@Norman Palardy]But why is this reported as a bug ? It isn’t a bug.
Please report things as the right type.[/quote]
Didn’t you notice that I discussed this very question? It’s not a feature request, either, since it’s not a feature, it’s something that might affect us one day, and then it could be called a bug or not. I see I couldn’t convince anyone, so just close it.

It would be “new functionality” therefore a new feature