On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Alex Queiroz asandroq@gmail.com wrote:
So you would keep the old structure, with the same id, and create for instance a new type game-state-2, with a different id, and a converter procedure update-game-state-1->2?
The more I think about it, the more I realize that we are basically dealing with the same problems as SQL schema evolution. It's a hard problem. I suppose you would have to keep all the old structures laying around. You could only rename old structures though, and keep the current one the same name. The update functions are equivalent to SQL "patches" which sequentially patch a database to produce a final updated schema. It's an annoying solution, but if you want to keep backwards compatibility, I can't think of anything else.
If you don't care about throwing away old game states, then simply changing the id would work.
- James