IPS 4.0 backward compatibility

[steadyoptions]

And since you used comparisons of desktop software: it wouldn't be different in those cases as well. If I buy a plugin for an app (like Photoshop) today, and tomorrow I update my app, which then uses 64 bit instead of 32, all my 32 bit plugins will stop working tomorrow(!) and will have to be rewritten. Adobe as a maker of that app has no control over whether that plugin update would cost money or is even offered at all. That's how it is and there is nothing to do about it. In your logic no app should ever move to 64 bit to maintain “backwards compatibility” with every third-party plugin ever written.

This is not how it works. You either stay will all your old software (OS/apps/plugins) and don't do major release upgrades or you go with the time and keep all parts of it up to date. That's your decision. But you cannot expect that every OS updates supports all apps and all app updates support all plugins. It's unrealistic and impossible. It would not allow software to get better. In the same way, IPS updates cannot be compatible to every hook and skin written for a certain version of the IPS software. The reasons have been given many times in this thread. You might not care about those reasons, but not caring about them doesn't make them untrue.

The 32 bit is a valid example - however, such change happens maybe once in 15-20 years. All other releases are maintaining backward compatibility. In case of IPS, it is my understanding that backward compatibility is broken with every major release, which is once in 2-3 years (?).

[bfarber]

There's a lot going on here and I would like to respond, but I just want to be clear that I'm dismissing the concerns and I understand where the OP is coming from.

As has been mentioned, backwards compatibility is often technically not possible without some sort of massive compatibility layer that would bloat the software for the vast majority of our clients who don't need it. For instance, the way a third party addon works in IP.Board is typically either through what we call a "hook" where by they inject code at certain code execution points in the software, or through an "application" where they add a new section to the site. In 3.x, these apps will call to variables set up in the software...$this->settings, $this->cache, $this->DB and so on. In 4.0, some of these variables have no analog - for instance, $this->cache references a cache_store table in IP.Board 3.x, but there is no true analog in 4.0. We don't cache certain things we used to, so calling to it is simply inherently broken in these cases. There is no way to even write a compatibility layer.

Then there are changes in PHP (we have a higher version requirement than 3.x) and MySQL, and certain methods that used to be required in our Database Abstraction Layer are no longer available, since we no longer support MSSQL any more. Thus, 3.x code will be calling to methods that don't even exist.

The only way to retain true compatibility is to have the 3.x codebase still available, in which case - you are running 3.x and not 4.0.

The skins especially are impossible to retain compatibility for. As already mentioned, we no longer use or support Prototype JS or swfupload, but 3.x skins do - they will be sending files for upload in a manner the backend cannot easily process, 3.x skins will define templates that aren't called to in the backend 4.0 skin, and templates 4.0 call to won't exist in the 3.x skins. There isn't any way to make a compatibility layer because 3.x skins do not call any sort of API to even layer against - they define templates which largely won't be used or called to by the 4.0 backend code.

Web software does not work the same way as firmware software I'm afraid. There's a reason web software does not retain backward compatibility through rewrites. Additionally, if you step back for a moment - the same thing does come up with operating-system level software as well. Many applications written for Windows 7 require an update in order to work on Windows 8. This is not abnormal.

[bfarber]

The 32 bit is a valid example - however, such change happens maybe once in 15-20 years. All other releases are maintaining backward compatibility. In case of IPS, it is my understanding that backward compatibility is broken with every major release, which is once in 2-3 years (?).

We have not released a major release that completely broke backwards compatibility since 3.0, which was in early/mid 2009. Major releases like this happen ever 4-5 years, because eventually we need to perform a major upgrade to stay with the times and leverage new technology. The web moves very fast and what was cutting edge in 2009 is very much outdated in 2013.

[Martin A.]

And I'm pretty sure a Windows 7 theme isn't compatible with Windows 8(.1).

[Midnight Modding]

Nobody said IPS supports them. But sometimes companies do have to do things they aren't "required" to do, just to keep as many customers. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another because you pretty much have to expect major changes when there is a big version jump. I do know the customer side, though, where they want their apps to work on whatever version. heck, people are telling me when I update apps for 4.0 and add features I should ALSO add them all to old versions!!!

Anyway, I just think they should think of ways to make it as easy as possible to convert things. They may not officially support third party apps or "have to" care about that type of thing, but sometimes they could easily make things easier.

As far as changes over the years, what's disappointing is how less popular forums are now. I still like posting on them, but so many people don't seek out forums anymore. Seems like most of the ones which are popular only stay popular due to having been created many years ago. I bet it would be mighty hard to get a new one popular now.

[Makoto]

The reason I'm an IPS customer is because I love how modern, fast and innovative IP.Board and its associated apps are. In comparison with every other forum software out there on the market, nothing, in my opinion, compares today.

I'm not an IPS customer because of how backwards compatible IP.Board is. or because it tries to maintain compatibility with PHP 4 (which it doesn't). I don't plan on upgrading to 4.0 right off the bat either. You don't even have to upgrade to 4.0 at all really. As previously stated, 3.4 is still going to be supported for a while to come.

If you have third party applications or hooks that are absolutely essential to your forum and they are not compatible with 4.0 on launch, just don't upgrade. Wait for the applications to be upgraded. If the application developer doesn't intend to update the application, you could try and hire a developer to upgrade the application for you.

It's a crappy situation to be in, but IPS is not to blame at all. They're third party applications, there's risk in using and especially relying on them.

[Midnight Modding]

when they say supported, that doesn't mean they'll fix bugs in it you find, however. So if there is a bug which annoys you enough you would have to move on to 4.0.

[Makoto]

3.4 will continue to receive security updates. As for bugs, the purpose on 3.4.6 was to fix the bulk of reported issues prior to 4.0's launch.

But worst case scenario, if you find a bug that breaks functionality somewhere, you could probably get a patch to fix the issue either from one of the devs here or from another community member.

I don't think 3.4 will receive any more official updates for bug fixes, but I'm not entirely sure on that.

[Midnight Modding]

I doubt they are going to fix a bug. If someone with support contacts them and says there is a bug, they're not going to prepare instructions for each remaining bug. They'll just say to upgrade to 4.0 because that's what they had done in the past.

[Adriano Faria]

I don't think 3.4 will receive any more official updates for bug fixes, but I'm not entirely sure on that.

That really won't happen. If there's a bug on 3.4.2 or 3.4.6 and if you still use it, it will be fixed on 4.0.X; they won't release anything else to 3.X, but security updates, which is different from bug fixes!

[Rheddy]

Midnight Modding. That may be true with some companies but it's usually because they can't afford to lose customers. If there's an app, hook, plugin or forum skin, then yoiu need to address that with the developer of that item. It's sort of like Microsoft and their release of Windows 8 and asking them to allow DOS based software to run on the new OS. It's just not feasible and puts the company into an unobtainable position.

IPS needs to move forward with their code, not backward. I hate to say it, but it sounds like you're asking for IPS to allow backwards compatability with third party addons. IPS 4 is a major upgrade to their forum software platform and I would rather see the company moving forward with its product rather than backwards. IPS 4 is just a dramatic step forward and every third party developer will either upgrade the code for their addons or just abandon them and let them as is.

Remember, it's your choice on whether to upgrade or not. But, I would recommend contacting the developer of the addon you're using.

[Jυra]

Opinions on what is backwards and forward is very subjective.

And again, the person obviously wishes to upgrade.

[Midnight Modding]

I didn't say any of that. Someone was talking about bug fixing and I said IPS will NOT go back fixing every bug. I did not say they should do that. I was only responding. I also never said they should have third party apps work with a major upgrade. Only thing I said about hat was there are ways to make it easier. They SHOULD put SOME thought into that type of thing, though, but I didn't say very much about it.

[Makoto]

That really won't happen. If there's a bug on 3.4.2 or 3.4.6 and if you still use it, it will be fixed on 4.0.X; they won't release anything else to 3.X, but security updates, which is different from bug fixes!

No, but you can still get patches for some issues on 3.4.6, or even backport some of the bug fixes yourself.

I wouldn't expect support to do this for you of course, but if there's a significant enough issue that many users are experiencing, someone's likely to find and post a fix for others to use.

That's all I was really saying.

[Midnight Modding]

A lot of times in the past they would post the manual fixes in the bug tracker, but I don't know if they still do.

[Saiga]

I doubt they are going to fix a bug. If someone with support contacts them and says there is a bug, they're not going to prepare instructions for each remaining bug. They'll just say to upgrade to 4.0 because that's what they had done in the past.

Which is why saying "nobody is forcing you to upgrade" is never valid.

[Midnight Modding]

yeah, it's just one of those things where each site owner needs to decide on with each new version. Some won't even update on point versions and some wait a long time before upgrading to a new major version. me, I always get too excited for new software. In the past i've updated on live sites to RC versions. lol

[Seth Jones]

There's no point in upgrading to 4.0.0 at first. It took IP.Board 3 a very long time before it was good. Any practical use of new software is to wait a few years before jumping in or else you have a chain of problems.

[Rheddy]

Because of the rush everyone gets into to submit requests at the same time, I generally for a week or two before requesting an upgrade. Because everyone rushes to get their requests in first.

[Hexsplosions]

IPS V4 is going to be modern, slick, clean, fast, efficient, full of Charles's charm... I don't want it to support old modifications because they are old. The internet is moving and I would like to see the core product move with it, not linger on supporting some backwards modifications that realistically need to be updated.

You also quote Ehren from IPBForumSkins so I feel a duty to defend him. Every single minor update he has ever provided for all of his skins have been free of charge. IPB4 will inevitably change his skins so drastically that these must be recoded from scratch, which means he must be able to recoup the cost of his time spent upgrading them.

I would like to use your example of Windows.

On Window 98 I had a Star Trek Windows theme that I bought. It made the computer look like the LCARS panel (yes, sad, I know). When I bought Windows ME it no longer worked. The author produced an ME version and marketed it accordingly. I would bet my front teeth that the Windows ME version did not work on XP, that the XP version would not work on Windows 7 and that the Windows 7 version would not work on Windows 8. It is acceptable that this is the case.

[Midnight Modding]

No matter what version the software is at, the customers still want the same types of modifications. So it's not like they're suddenly going to want something different because 4.0 is different. A lot of what is done in modifications is simply using built in ip.board functions, so for it to support past apps does NOT mean the apps are behind the curve, as tit would still be using a lot of built in ip.board functionality. What gets annoying is when function names which do the same things as past versions get name changes. In a lot of cases, if they would just keep the same function names for major functions and then an easy search and replace for anything which COULD work with one, it would be much easier. Most authors are simply going to convert their apps to work with 4.0, so wanting them to not be compatible from the beginning doesn't achieve much, as they will still simply be converted and work the same as they always did.

I hate skinning, so updating templates is what I hate doing, personally...

[steadyoptions]

IPS V4 is going to be modern, slick, clean, fast, efficient, full of Charles's charm... I don't want it to support old modifications because they are old. The internet is moving and I would like to see the core product move with it, not linger on supporting some backwards modifications that realistically need to be updated.

You also quote Ehren from IPBForumSkins so I feel a duty to defend him. Every single minor update he has ever provided for all of his skins have been free of charge. IPB4 will inevitably change his skins so drastically that these must be recoded from scratch, which means he must be able to recoup the cost of his time spent upgrading them.

I would like to use your example of Windows.

On Window 98 I had a Star Trek Windows theme that I bought. It made the computer look like the LCARS panel (yes, sad, I know). When I bought Windows ME it no longer worked. The author produced an ME version and marketed it accordingly. I would bet my front teeth that the Windows ME version did not work on XP, that the XP version would not work on Windows 7 and that the Windows 7 version would not work on Windows 8. It is acceptable that this is the case.

Well, it wasn't a complete waste of time to me. I definitely learned few things from this discussion.

The fact the Ehren had to release 20 upgrades since 3.1 speaks volumes about the way IPS does things. That means that they broke backwards compatibility in virtually every new release. While it might be acceptable for every major release, I think it is completely unacceptable when it happens with every release. And the fact that developers continue selling mods/apps/skins today knowing that they will stop working in a few months and not warning customers is a dishonest practice by itself.

To me, the conclusion was simple: I just cannot trust any third party to do things for me because of those upgrades. So I just made few changes by myself using this giude. Many thanks to Broni, I'm sure he made many developers very unhappy because now many customers can make changes by themselves and not pay $400+ for a "custom" skin. Those changes were not a big deal, just few simple code changes. btw, I don't understand why IPS cannot make those things configurable in admin panel (like it's done with >this skin). But then again, it would prevent developers charging hundreds of dollars for those changes, so maybe there is a purpose here..

If it is acceptable to you to pay for the same product again each time a new release of OS comes, then by all means go for it. It is not acceptable to me, but that's just me..

When I installed couple skins and asked my members for their opinion, they said they see nothing wrong in the default skin. I built a very successful business of few hundred customers using the default skin, so maybe this whole "custom and unique look" is overrated anyway.

[Dmacleo]

IPS V4 is going to be modern, slick, clean, fast, efficient, full of Charles's charm... I don't want it to support old modifications because they are old. The internet is moving and I would like to see the core product move with it, not linger on supporting some backwards modifications that realistically need to be updated.

You also quote Ehren from IPBForumSkins so I feel a duty to defend him. Every single minor update he has ever provided for all of his skins have been free of charge. IPB4 will inevitably change his skins so drastically that these must be recoded from scratch, which means he must be able to recoup the cost of his time spent upgrading them.

I would like to use your example of Windows.

On Window 98 I had a Star Trek Windows theme that I bought. It made the computer look like the LCARS panel (yes, sad, I know). When I bought Windows ME it no longer worked. The author produced an ME version and marketed it accordingly. I would bet my front teeth that the Windows ME version did not work on XP, that the XP version would not work on Windows 7 and that the Windows 7 version would not work on Windows 8. It is acceptable that this is the case.

to be fair when we got Win ME nothing much worked, including Win ME :P

[Midnight Modding]

I didn't really have to change much in the various 3.x releases, but some people do a lot of different types of things I don't use. Plus some may have updated the various ways of using the editor, whereas I haven't done it yet, since the old way still works.... but I am guessing 4.0 will get rid of backward compatibility for that too.

[3DKiwi]

steadyoptions - perhaps you should change to vBulletin? You then might realise how much better Invision is.