Re: transition to RPSLng

[Florent Parent <]

--On 2002-05-02 16:48:44 +0200 andrei@localhost wrote:

> Hi Florent,
> 
> Before making specific comments to the proposal let me understand the
> final goal of the transition. Do we plan just to deploy the extensions,
> or do we also aim at phasing out the old, non-multiprotocol parts? 

As long as we want to keep backward compatibility for the current tools, we
cannot phase out the current classes (old). 

> What
> would be goals of specific phases if we see different phases of the
> transition at all?
> 

The "transition" I started to write down is how do we go from "now" to
"support multiprotocol", pointing out that we need to keep "old" and "new"
in sync.

As time goes by, new tools will be developped and current tools will be
adapted to support the new mp-classes: we will very likely get to a point
where keeping the new multiprotocol classes will be sufficient. The gain
here is that we remove the overlap between the different classes/attributes
in the database. 

When will this happen? Anyone's guess is as good as mine. Experience has
shown us that a transition period can span over quite some time. 

Hope that makes sense. 

Thanks Andrei.
Florent.