They're not ground-breaking changes. In fact, if it all goes right, none of my normal users will even realize there's been a change at all.
I'm working on updating my code libraries to... well, to be better, and safer.
For those interested (if you've read this far, that means you are), I'm changing the database abstraction layers to use PDO. It's turned into a massive rewrite just to be *partially* backwards-compatible, so I've concentrated on only dealing with PostgreSQL.
Once I've rewritten the main library, I'll end up having to rewrite my website's code to handle the non-backwards-compatible changes. And I'll have to decide what all is going to stay, such as the news feed on the main page: right now, that is being run by an old library called "rssdb" or something like that, which basically takes news feeds and dumps them into a database. It was cool, at the time... but I think it's outlived it's usefulness.
I've been told by others (including my wife) that they read the news on the front page, so apparently I'll either need to update that library or find a simpler/different way to get the news. Maybe I'll skip the part about writing it to the database, since I don't really utilize any of that anyway.
Aaaaaanyway.... so this big change has been coming for a long time. I'm still struggling with whether it's more important to be backward-compatible, or to just get it done. The former means that dependent code won't have to undergo quite as extensive of rewrites... the latter means that the darned thing might actually get done. I'm trying to limit the amount of work I have to do in order to implement something that probably should have been done from the start.
Oh, and to throw another wrench into the works, I'm looking at converting my webserver from Apache to nginx (that's "Engine-X"), because it's a lot faster.
Ugh. Thanks for reading (especially to my wife).
Back to coding.