I have been patiently waiting with great anticipation for the release of XOOPS 2.2, but now I am getting a little concerned.

My concern is due to the Articles 1.0 rc1 module release and the announcement of the Smart modules pending release and something each of them mention.

Is there a chance that when XOOPS 2.2 is released in its stable version that all the modules I am currently using that are not part of XOOPS download (ie made by others) ... that they may not be compatible with 2.2 ???

Will these new "2.2 compatible" modules be backward compatible with 2.0.??? versions.

Is this website now going to have, or need to have, 2 different Module Repository's? One for 2.2 version and one for 2.0.??? versions?

I might be getting myself too anxious too soon. But seeing how everyone is so anxious for a stable version of 2.2 ... I am thinking any day it "could be" released. I am just concerned that those of us using "non-included" modules should be made aware NOW if there is going to be potential problems if we upgrade without having upgraded modules ready to go.

Thanks
Peter

90% of old modules will work normally with XOOPS 2.2.

Thanks Gambero ...

BUT ... will XOOPS 2.2 come with a list naming the 10% of the modules that won't work? Or would I just have to "take a chance" and hope the modules I have installed wlll continue to work?

Peter

You can infer what modules will work ... and I think there won't be any list of modules that don't work. List your installed modules here ...

And if you are still too scared to upgrade .... install XOOPS 2.2 RC2 on a test site and try all the modules that you would like to know if they work.

Basically, it's the same with every new version (this is the start of a new series of releases, the 2.2 series, after we had the 1.x and 2.0 series). Some new features have been added, so not all 2.2 modules will be backwards compatible. You will be hardpressed to find applications for the 64 bit operating systems to run on 16 bit OS's, for the same reasons. But, that would mean the old releases would have forward compatibility, and -aside from the Instant Video system on board of the Spaceball's mothership- this has not been invented yet

There will not be a 'compatibilty' list for X2.2, simply because there are a lot of modules out there that would need to be checked on all kinds of platforms under all kinds of circumstances. Too big a task.
However, there will be a document explaining the changes made to X2.2, where compatibility could be an issue. This means it will explain the proper use of the X2.2 API, especially where there have been changes compared with X2.0.x.

Great care has been taken to keep backwards compatibility with the XOOPS 2.0.x API. This is an important distinction, because if a module has implemend the API incorrectly, then compatibility could be broken. But that's what the API is there for, and why XOOPS exists in the first place: extensible, modular, object oriented should make it possible to upgrade easily, if used correctly.

So now it's up to the module developers to check if they have used the API correctly, and to check whether the changes and additions made to the core and its API affect their modules. And those are the messages you see popping up here and there.

So, don't worry

Herko

Thanks again Gambero ... and Thank you Herko ...

Your responses are going a long way in helping to keep me calm. Well ... at least a little calmer.

There is only one module that I use that I would say is probably extremely out dated but there have been no updates to it. So, I am assuming that if the other modules that I use at least, as long as I keep them updated to the newest and most recent versions, then I "should", in all likelihood, be okay to upgrade when 2.2 stable release is issued. Whether they state they are 2.2 compatible or not. Most of them have had their latest releases within the past few months ... and most have been developed by members who seem to be respected here for their work ... like AMS, Smart modules and GIJOE ... so I am probably safer than some (maybe most)

Thanks again for your assurances and patience

Peter