devicemap-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Werner Keil <werner.k...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Should we implement the W3C DDR standard or not?
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2015 15:59:46 GMT
The umbrella ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DMAP-49 should
not have been resolved because it's not done with a first draft or
pre-Alpha showcase of how it may work on top of the parser and
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DMAP-123 should have been filed only
after a vote like all to make "significant" changes to the repository.
Whether it's deleting something or adding something new.

You can see a very tomorrow process at Tamaya, where pieces of the codebase
were also changed quite a bit (not always with the necessary voting either
to be fair;-) e.g. because of some suspected code being copied (without
consent or contribution by its authors, not like the official donation we
saw here in the past) etc. So for more than one reason this contribution
should have been discussed first.



On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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