On ter?a-feira, 23 de fevereiro de 2016 17:37:50 PST ???(Uze Choi) wrote: > Thiago/Stephane, (Stephane, Sorry for late response) > > If we think about the C++ and Java API, different name space looks good > idea. > > Whatever name-space strategy we use, this looks consensus. > > : After spec-aligned, API should be backward compatible, > > Before spec-aligned, API does not require backward compatible. > Any issue with it?
Hi Uze Just to be clear: IoTivity should provide some level of compatibility even for non-spec-aligned code, otherwise people can't try out the experimental code. I don't think we have a mature enough codebase yet to make long-term promises, but we should think about it. But I agree in principle. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
