abdera-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Garrett Rooney" <roo...@electricjellyfish.net>
Subject Re: Vendor extensions
Date Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:56:28 GMT
On 4/19/07, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Querna wrote:
> > [snip]
> > I have mixed feelings about embedding vendor names in our filenames, or
> >  API names. (gdata vs google vs some-generic-standard-paths-name)
> >
> Yes, that is a concern.  Is there an alternative naming approach that
> would work better? I honestly do not know.

Sure, you don't have abdera-google.jar, you have abdera-ext-gdata.jar
(the name of the spec, which theoretically anyone could use, not just
google), you don't have abdera-ibm.jar or abdera-lotus.jar, you have
abdera-ext-name-of-lotus-extensions.jar, etc.

> > But, otherwise, I think it generally makes sense, as long as the vendor
> > is good about publishing how their extension works in a publicly
> > accessible document.
> >
> We can make a stable, publicly accessible document a minimum requirement
> for allowing any vendor-specific extension code into the project.


Note, that it's certainly a requirement, but it's not sufficient.  If
the spec was licensed under icky terms (like keeping other people from
implementing servers that use that protocol, for example), that would
be a show stopper.  I suspect this will need to be a case by case sort
of thing.


View raw message