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. >
