abdera-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James M Snell <jasn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Abdera and Feed Thread
Date Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:56:39 GMT
As an FYI, the Feed Thread stuff was added before the code came to
Apache.  It was part of the initial checkin.

Another point is, given that Feed Thread is now a Proposed Standard,
(the same level of standardization as Atom itself), I personally have no
problems merging it (and any extension that goes through the trouble of
standardization) into the core API.  However, it is very easy to
separate out into a separate package.

- James

Stephen Duncan wrote:
> I'm not subscribed to the commits list (that's a bit too much for me),
> so I'm only seeing the information on this on James' blog:
> http://www.snellspace.com/wp/?p=372
> 
> Honestly, I'm concerned about this addition.  Certainly I think it's a
> large enough change, both in raw API terms as well as in scope of the
> API, that it deserved discussion on the list first, moreso than many
> other things that have been discussed.
> 
> Is first-class support of certain extensions the way to go?  By
> first-class support, I mean addition of custom methods on the core
> model objects.  I think that's going to be confusing to users who will
> assume that the methods are part of the core Atom spec.  As more
> extensions got this treatment, those interfaces are going to go
> bloated, right?
> 
> Even if it is the right thing to do, adding methods for extension to
> the core interfaces, what's the criteria for choosing which extensions
> get supported this way?
> 
> Personally, I'd rather see Abdera focus on making using extensions
> that are added as separate independent code easy enough to use, that
> adding them to the core interfaces doesn't even feel like it makes
> sense anymore.
> 

Mime
View raw message