Practically, which rule should we apply in this coming release 1.1.0('16 March)?
Let me sum up as follows.-IoTivity Base Layer (equivalent to Core Spec area) .Most of protocol are aligned to Spec for the base layer from 1.0.1 ==> it requires the backward compatibility .But of protocol are updated after 1.0.1 and will be done soon due to spec and open source update and sync. ==> it will break the backward compatibility. e.g) default interface concept.. which was newly re-defined.. requires API break to comply.... -IoTivity Service, Security Already sync from IoTivity 1.0.1 --> requires backward compatibility. Sync updated after IoTivity 1.0.1 or not synchronized --> does not requires backward compatibility. BR, Uze Choi -----Original Message----- From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:42 AM To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] IoTivity Backward compatibility support level issue. 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 _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
