On quinta-feira, 18 de fevereiro de 2016 10:43:23 PST Stephane Lejeune (stlejeun) wrote: > One option could be: > Use different API name spaces (ex OIC name space and private namespace) > during the ?GAP? period. i.e. :The spec feature gets developed in the OIC > namespace, the open source gets developed in a private namespace. > Once the > spec and open source have converged for the specific feature, plug the open > source feature into the OIC API namespace. Whether (and how long) the open > source (or a product) wants to maintain the private namespace (now legacy) > becomes then an Iotivity (or product) choice. What?s important is that the > open source allows those options (through a compile flag) so constrained > devices can compile out the legacy overhead (when appropriate). > > Pro: no API breaks while the feature matures (as spec and open source play > in different name spaces). > > Con: there is still some API breakage when the > private API gets dropped (but that becomes a Iotivity/product choice).
I think this is a good idea and a good way to proceed. Of course, we have limited use of the "OIC" namespace (a lot of things were "OC" before). And since we may want to rename to OCF now... -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
