devicemap-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reza Naghibi <reza.nagh...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Should we implement the W3C DDR standard or not?
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2015 16:25:19 GMT
Sorry, I meant to link this thread [0] as the thread discussing the W3C standard. This is the
discussion thread! Look at the title!

[0] http://s.apache.org/rq0


      From: Reza Naghibi <reza.naghibi@yahoo.com.INVALID>
 To: "dev@devicemap.apache.org" <dev@devicemap.apache.org> 
 Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 11:05 AM
 Subject: Re: Should we implement the W3C DDR standard or not?
   
Link to discussion regarding W3C DDR standard:

http://s.apache.org/6g8


I think we are back to should we release 2 Java APIs. As I have previously said [0] and Bertrand
also said, this is upto the us the PMC to decide this. I encourage you to continue your work
on the legacy client. The classifier client has already gone several iterations, versions,
and releases, so not sure if we can stop that progress. If you would like to hold a vote on
any matter, please do so.

[0] http://s.apache.org/ie

---

      From: Werner Keil <werner.keil@gmail.com>


 To: dev@devicemap.apache.org; Reza Naghibi <reza.naghibi@yahoo.com> 
 Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 10:49 AM
 Subject: Re: Should we implement the W3C DDR standard or not?
  
I accept it as "work in progress" but not as done, complete or release
ready. And since it was something completely new there should have been a
proper discussion on the mailing list as Bertrand reminded before adding
anything.

The existing W3C implementation was part of the initial codebase and has
always worked, even under the /contrib branch, the state in
/trunk/devicemap/java matches the most recent data version and is not
missing any aspect of either the W3C DDR API or data file, so it's usable
and its release long overdue.


Werner






On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Reza Naghibi <reza.naghibi@yahoo.com.invalid
> wrote:

> Just so I can better understand this, you do not accept this W3C compliant
> solution of the Java API [0]? Thats completely ok, I just want to make sure
> I understand your sentiment in the context of this thread.
>
> [0]
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/devicemap/trunk/devicemap/java/classifier_w3c_simple/
>
>      From: Werner Keil <werner.keil@gmail.com>
>  To: dev@devicemap.apache.org
>  Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 10:31 AM
>  Subject: Re: Should we implement the W3C DDR standard or not?
>
> Without looking into JIRA and noticing some "Problem fixed" tickets none of
> us would have noticed (nor voted on;-|) a test balloon towards a possible
> wrapper around classifier.
> It could be a future direction to merge both and offer people a migration
> path from a W3C DDR compliant solution (either OpenDDR, DeviceAtlas, etc.)
> but in its current form it looks like a hasty shot without consulting
> anybody in the team (once again)
>
> Only if you dropped those into a demo WAR (or standalone app) similar to
> those under examples perfectly working for the current W3C DDR
> implementation and it produced the same results it could pass as
> replacement or compatible migration path. The few classes I spotted
> contained at most 3-5 (minimal) properties in a hard-coded array, not the
> full extent of the current vocabulary we support and maintain in
> device-data. That's not a complete implementation, hence I don't see it
> could replace a 1.x release of the DDR client, but with some work by
> several of us we could get it to become a migration path in the future.
>
> The current SimpleDDR module represents a joint effort by dozens of people
> since late 2011 or in some cases earlier. I contributed it to Apache but I
> wasn't the only one working on it;-)
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So do I.
> >
> > You understand it, but just for some others, think of it as options to
> > access a CMS system via
> >
> >    - JCR
> >    - WebDAV
> >    - Some proprietary vendor-specific protocol
> >
> > While DeviceMap is Open Source, the "Classifier" still doesn't define
> more
> > than a proprietary protocol/API as opposed to the one W3C specified.
> >
> > Werner
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> > bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > ...None, that's why a new W3C version could read a changed structure
> >> just
> >> > like file parsers do....
> >>
> >> Ok cool, so if your W3C client is independent from the format of the
> >> device data I don't see a problem with it living in parallel with
> >> other clients.
> >>
> >> -Bertrand
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>




  
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message