devicemap-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Werner Keil <>
Subject Re:
Date Thu, 01 Jan 2015 17:05:46 GMT
That's why it is slated for a 1.0 release (regardless of maturity but it
goes along with 1.x of the data files) and it does not need to be
compatible with any 2.0 data changes in future.
Whether or not we maintain 2 branches of data, guess time shall tell.
Patches or fixes that can be applied maybe, but like with other vendors
(DeviceAtlas, 52DegreesMobi or ScienteMobile/WURFL) they may not maintain 2
parallel repositories forever.


On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Reza Naghibi <
> wrote:

> I understand.
> What is the roadmap for the legacy client?
> Just so you are aware, 2.0 data release will remove the notion of a
> builder from the data. How will the legacy client evolve to support this?
> Take a look at this:
> Go into the os, browser, and device. There is no way 2.0 data can maintain
> support for this kind of builder architecture. Are you aware of this?
>       From: Werner Keil <>
>  To:; Reza Naghibi <>
>  Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 11:48 AM
>  Subject: Re:
> Well, it's just a fact, the W3C Simple implementation shall be released as
> 1.0 according to a discussion we had a long time ago.
> It's been around and stable almost ever since OpenDDR donated it and that
> has not changed.The only reason it was not released was an incompatible
> change (bug) you slipped into a Data release 1.x where packages of builders
> were named improperly.This was fixed with 1.0,1, thus nothing prevents a
> release of the DDR artifact.
> There is no rift, we have a .NET client (which is barely maintained, but
> that's another issue) and a new direction which allows more flexibility in
> the "Cloud", e.g. retrrieving device data from various sources. That's
> something W3C did not consider important, so the location of the data
> source has to be fixed, that's the only real drawback of the W3C DDR
> implementation. It could only be fixed in the W3C code we don't own;-)
> I trust the PMC is wise enough to release the W3C DDR implementation,
> because not only examples depend on it. And it provides functionality and
> recognition power the "New Cloud" client will not get until V 2.0 as you
> also said. It does not matter if that happens in JIRA or the mailing list,
> JIRA is also transparent and allows us to see what's been done;)
> Cheers,Werner
> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Reza Naghibi
> <> wrote:
> So I don't want to have discussions in JIRA, so Werner, can you please
> elaborate on your last point in this thread:
> "Indicates, while not in direct competition, the "older" W3C one is a bit
> more mature and stable."
> The reason im asking you to elaborate is because as a PMC member, I would
> like to better understand your thoughts on this project, its mission
> statement, and where we are going with our data and API development.
> Im concerned because you seem to be building a rift in this project in
> regard to old API vs new API. This is not going to be good for the health
> of the project so this is an attempt to better understand your views and
> feeling towards the project and the direction we are going in. This is
> important because you are someone who actively promotes and markets this
> project.

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