John Fuller - 15 November 2008 03:55 PM

Btw, I hate the title of this thread.  When someone replies here I get a message entitled “whats taking you so long?”  I get enough of those emails already, thanks. 

Ha! That actually made me laugh

Thanks for the insight Derek - and we promise to try and be patient.

Hi there,

I didn’t bother to read the comments but I really appreciate it you posted the blog (entry). I rather hear from time to time “we’re working on it” or “we’re stuck” than nothing at all :-D

So keep up the good work and bear in mind you suppose to have a life as well

Jeroen
... who once again was saved by the tech support forum today as he deleted by accident the “path.php” file and could create a new one within minutes

Better to have it right than fast. As the saying goes: good, fast, cheap. Pick two.

elegantmachines - 16 November 2008 11:57 AM

Better to have it right than fast. As the saying goes: good, fast, cheap. Pick two.

I’d settle for “good” and “fast.”

Thanks for the update. I am still learning 1.0 but I am hoping that I can apply it to 2.0. Will EE sites built on 1.0 be upgradable to 2.0? Anything we should be careful of while developing sites on 1.0 if we want to upgrade to 2.0?

Keep on keepn’ on…

Joshmax - 16 November 2008 01:34 PM

Thanks for the update. I am still learning 1.0 but I am hoping that I can apply it to 2.0. Will EE sites built on 1.0 be upgradable to 2.0? Anything we should be careful of while developing sites on 1.0 if we want to upgrade to 2.0?

Keep on keepn’ on…

Hi Josh,

You can find the answers to the above on the EE 2 Preview FAQ. Short answer is that our goal is to have 1.x sites fully upgradable to 2.0 out of the box. The thing to look for will be 3rd party add-ons as they will have to be rewritten for 2.0. There will be a developer preview available to 3rd party add-on devs so they will have time to rework their add-ons prior to 2.0’s public release.

Thank you for the incredible update on EE 2 and the snippets of code you shared. EE 2 is going to be great and I’m most EE users are willing to wait however long it takes to make sure it’s right. Keep up the great work!

Leslie Camacho - 16 November 2008 05:53 PM

Joshmax - 16 November 2008 01:34 PM

Thanks for the update. I am still learning 1.0 but I am hoping that I can apply it to 2.0. Will EE sites built on 1.0 be upgradable to 2.0? Anything we should be careful of while developing sites on 1.0 if we want to upgrade to 2.0?

Keep on keepn’ on…

Hi Josh,

You can find the answers to the above on the EE 2 Preview FAQ. Short answer is that our goal is to have 1.x sites fully upgradable to 2.0 out of the box. The thing to look for will be 3rd party add-ons as they will have to be rewritten for 2.0. There will be a developer preview available to 3rd party add-on devs so they will have time to rework their add-ons prior to 2.0’s public release.

Have you considered making this page available on the EE homepage and also as a sticky on the forums?

Humm..its logical with anyone wants one system more stable, its obvius!
I personally, dont care with EE 2.0 will be done in end of this year or in some remote point the 2009/2010’s years…or in some webserver in a Futurama episode. I know with when EE 2.0 outs, will be a CMS blockbuster, and THIS is what matters.

When will be done, will be done.

The problem was the announcment “will be done” was in Summer’2008…
Damn, what expectatives…
Now i´m with a damn flashback like Windows Longhorn times…

Lets wait…

Wow. Thanks for sharing about your work. This definitely helps to appreciate just how GREAT 2.0 is going to be. And I for one, want you guys to be the best! You do what you have to do.

THANK YOU!

John Fuller - 15 November 2008 06:14 AM

One other thing.  I’m excited to finally get to see the Ellislab interpretation of how an application should be built on CodeIgniter.

Agreed. Outstanding.

Bharrabhaz - 17 November 2008 10:56 AM

Humm.. Now i´m with a damn flashback like Windows Longhorn times…

“EE Longhorn?”

Ouch.

Hey that does lead me to wonder what the Dereks’ and others might be referring to EE v.2.0 as?
Don’t all coding geeks have an in-house pet project name. Our last in-house project of a major consequence was

Codeword: “Rolling Thunder”

.

What you think about:  “Codename: ExpectedEngine” ?

Bharrabhaz - 20 November 2008 11:09 AM

What you think about:  “Codename: ExpectedEngine” ?

Ahhh, wait I think I forgot about the propensity for in-house things to be labeled with a Pythonesque code word.
Maybe something like: “Spiny Norman” aka the 800’ long Giant Hedgehog as seen by the happy loony Pirahna brother Dinsdale.
Deep stuff.

“You hear that?!  We’re using code names.”

Maybe “Ex-summerEngine” ?

I know what I’m about to write won’t be popular since, in my own work, I hate it when someone throws that question at me but… I have also find it useful to address the question so it’s in that spirit (constructive criticism) that I’m raising the question.

There are basically two strategies to migrate to a new framework. One is the big bang, which is your current strategy, i.e. a full rewrite. The other one is gradual rewriting, while adding new features. For example, the migration takes place over the course of the entire 2.x development. The groundwork would be done in 2.0, but some stuff would remain old code (relying on a common database, of course). Migration continues in 2.1 alongside bug fixes. 2.2 adds new features and some more migration (one module at a time say), etc.

Both strategies are extremely frustrating because basically, as you said in your post, the underlying work is not glamorous and is frustrating but the big bang is typically choosen because it appears to be the easiest and fastest solution.
However in most projects the big bang causes you to loose competitiveness against other products… up to the point where a gradual migration actually makes more sens… despite its numerous shortcomings (and I know the shortcomings, and I know they appear unsurmountable until you have a real hard look at them).

So, after this introduction, my question is: are you sure the current strategy is the best one for the product and the community?

While you are working on the migration, other CMS are making progress feature-wise (MT has added custom fields, for example). More importantly 2.0 is not supposed to be feature-neutral, it is supposed to introduce the full commerce module which (if I read the forum posts) many people would consider a very worthy addition.

Please understand that I am not urging to change strategy. That would be presumptuous for me. But I’m asking have you considered all the consequences of the fact that you understimate the time it takes to migrate? Have you considered the alternative scenario?