Mariano

I think that evolution and migration is key if we want to use fuel for loading code.
This is why in MCZ you have always the source files. In case of trouble.

It is important to use the current situation as case for evolution.
I like the idea of igor of having class that represent different versions.

Stef

On Oct 11, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Philippe Marschall wrote:

> On 10/08/2011 10:42 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>> s
>>
>>>>
>>>> This is IMHO more than necessary for Fuel to become a production ready
>>>> serializer and I'd say Fuel is now "old enough" to become such :)
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>> Now what I would love is that even if fuel changes that the evolution of
>>> information
>>> is taken into account because like that it will be exercised for real.
>>>
>>>
>> No, that's impossible, and if posible, it is not worth it. Migrating from an
>> old format to a new one is extremelly complicated and innecessary. The
>> easiest way to solve this is to take the correct version of Fuel,
>> materialize the graph from the stream, load new version of Fuel, and
>> seriaize it again. That the easiest, more secure, and more practical
>> approach I can see.
>
> That is horribly na�ve an excludes fuel from a lot of use cases. You
> can't use fuel for "archiving" objects outside of the image because you
> will never know whether you will be able to read them in again because
> the format changes. You will always need to have "live" ones in the image.
>
> That means you can't use fuel for anything Monticello related because
> you may never be able to load those versions in again because the file
> format has changed in the mean time.
>
> Cheers
> Philippe
>
>