[TYPO3-mvc] Why don't we suck at TYPO3?

[Martin Kutschker]

Am 03.05.2011 10:38, schrieb Jigal van Hemert:
> 
>> Please don't forget that we're in a different situation than a year ago:
>> We need to keep Extbase backwards compatible more than ever (a lot of
>> people are using it in productive projects today). On the other hand we
>> need to stay in sync with FLOW3, which is still changing a lot - and
>> this conflict is not easy to solve. With the beta release of FLOW3 1.0
>> this will hopefully change and we'll be able to backport all the
>> important features & changes. To be able to keep existing Extensions
>> running anyways, we're planning to introduce a "compatibility flag" as
>> discussed in Berlin.
> 
> Because FLOW3 is still changing one can expect that a backport such as Extbase is also changing a
> lot. Backwards compatibility is not a priority in my opinion. I do believe that the beta state
> Extbase is too optimistic. It doesn't seem logical to me to have a backport of a piece of alpha
> software (which FLOW3 still is at this very moment) in a beta state.

I think that Extbase users can expect some kind of compatibility. Probably not to the same extent of
TYPO3 proper, but eg the API shouldn't change names (just for the sake of a slighty better name,
etc). If things cease to work deliberately then there should be some kind of upgrade plan (ie how do
you get the same effect in the new version).

> Using Extbase-based (Extbase'd ? ;-) ) extension in production environment is possible, but has its
> risks.

While I have to admit that I haven't written a TYPO3 extension for a while (been busy with Magento),
I would have thought that by now Extbase is ready for prime time (at least in a limited scope). So I
really would hope that Extbase is not a target moving at a very high speed (see above).

> Upgrading the core means heavy testing to make sure the extension is still fully functional.
> That is the logical result of the decision to use alpha/beta software as the base. Nothing bad about
> such a decision, but one which should be made very consciously.

Perhaps it makes sense now to split up the working Extbase part (which needs "only" to be
maintained, ie it's bugs getting fixed) and the experimental parts (the backports of new FLOW3
features).

Two solutions come to my mind:

a) each new backport is a seperate extensions until it's reasonably stable
b) there is an Extbase "replacement" available on forge onöy which incl. all the fancy stuff

Masi