Toolbox object structures

[Tony van der Hoff]

On 27 Sep 2003, in message <59e07f384c.tom at loxley.compton.nu>,
Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote:

> What do people think is the best way to handle changes to Toolbox
> object structures?
> 
> The ProgInfo object gained two members in version 1.01 which aren't
> currently in the OSLib version. My preference would be just to add
> them to the existing structure - if you reading object from disk then
> you're going to have to check the header length and only read that
> many bytes anyway so the extra members at the end of the structure
> shouldn't be an issue.
> 
I thought I had already done that; I've certainly done something along
those lines where a toolbox structure has grown; so, yes, I agree with your
approach. 

Obviously the extra fields need commenting.

> I ask because somebody asked on the user list and his suggested
> solution was to create a new v101 structure derived from the current
> one with the extra members added, but that seems over-complicated.
> 
No, if anything, we should udate the present structure, and introduce a v100
structure for backwards compatibility. I see no ueseful advantage to this.

PS, the reason I've gone a bit quiet recently is that a disaster on one of my
SCSI disks has taken out my entire /home partition, containing a number of
projects, fortunately mostly backed up, but not the OSLib Unix build, which
was almost ready for alpha release. I have the data, and am gradually
recovering the files, but it's a bit uphill...

-- 
Tony van der Hoff         | MailTo:tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk
Buckinghamshire, England  | http:www.mk-net.demon.co.uk