Garrett Rooney wrote:
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.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have the framework for extensions and then
allow vendors to publish their compatible extensions elsewhere? Maybe
Abdera can have some automatic way of loading extensions. (This is similar
to what BSF does for example.)
I assume what Google asked for was to support the GData client API out of
the box for Abdera. What about the other direction? Would they be ok with
a GData server side impl also going with Abdera?
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.
This is exactly what the OSI's trying to define as open source
requirements for open source [1]. That effort is not done yet but that's
the critical requirement if we're doing the above- it must not preclude an
open source implementation. If you have comments please send them to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sanjiva.
[1] http://www.opensource.org/osr
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Director; Open Source Initiative; http://www.opensource.org/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
