Then what you work on is not a 1.0 release but a 1.x or 2.x release, see the DeviceAtlas API (and even others like WURFL probably got a bit of a synergy between different platforms)
So instead of a rushed, incomplete "new" API the 1.0 release should be what has been ready and mature for the past 2 years and AFAIK would feel very familiar to Eberhard's .NET API. Whether or not the .NET API also gets a rewrite, we shall see, ideally (just take DeviceAtlas and other commercial APIs, not to mimick them but see their consistent behavior across platforms) it would, but for 1.0 the goal would be to support Java and .NET in a consistent way. Werner On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > While the exact names of particular classes in the recent DeviceAtlas API > differ a bit from W3C simple, you can see here, the behavior feels almost > identical in Java and .NET (and all other languages we may support in the > future instead of creating too many different libraries to do the same > thing that already works[?]) > > https://deviceatlas.com/resources/enterprise-api-documentation > > The JavaDoc and .NET equivalent feel almost identical. > > OpenDDR not only by the OpenDDR team has been adopted on GitHub, see > https://github.com/search?q=openddr&ref=cmdform > Including a port to the Play! framework and several other languages. > > So the Java API should feel along the lines of Eberhard's .NET port to C#. > If it matches or even directly uses W3C artifacts, so should the 1.0 > release for Java. > > Werner > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> See DeviceAtlas, I don't agree that dropping W3C compliance on the Java >> side is correct. >> >> If you want to create a "new WURFL", sure, go ahead let's drop it, but if >> we prefer to stay compatible with the de facto market leader here (plus one >> or two alternatives, semi-open like MaDDR or completely open like OpenDDR) >> we should maintain W3C support like they do. >> >> Werner >> >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:51 PM, eberhard speer jr. <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> the .Net W3C implementation follows the >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/DDR-Simple-API/ specs, to the letter. >>> >>> Like Reza, I think it's nice to have but not vital to this release. >>> And some kind of integration with DeviceMap still needs to happen. >>> >>> >>> esjr >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32) >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >>> >>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTvWUPAAoJEOxywXcFLKYc5WQH+we0ZTLfsxRhWzqpNhHj+p+k >>> anT2nfXK0iwz6va1VInHKEEuULMQD/FFPP33GrAj/dV4KHAKNB4w67G9TB0RcIhz >>> 3Y2YPtg5eLSnOyY1O6+2ncCR/PwU7Sn78V5XKrWpaxWVcLmVSt1uCvOxUXG3KZhJ >>> 8Jn9K2N5XiYfH+KI3JWWZhFvPu1eE6m5aS2fyEJiq3B0XfqmmiTYMa/iY/+B/Cha >>> SdLBBVGpIWVt/RpLqdZou0XjXwvzb/b74SGr9l0fBQA2zjDB7D9PXRAz8PbV6h96 >>> 8NRE2DWPL4aBxBKr1XHp1NKG8ccrbK/hf5oSnwygO2vWSyK+c4He58PCwnxe2Ec= >>> =GSP4 >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> >
