Indeed, and it sounds like this is a good topic to talk through in the sprint.
There are several inner points to the topic: - Versioning interfaces is possible - Extending the _same_ interfaces with optional features is possible - Providing multiple interfaces, the general one and a custom one, is also possible - The grand plan of properly [1] documenting interfaces never happened - We should avoid adding new terminology and logic to an already rich context; conventions can solve problems [1] See http://webintents.org/share, for example On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Mark Shuttleworth <[email protected]> wrote: > > When we originally discussed this, the view was that versioning would be > handled directly in the name. So folks CAN if they want do an http-XYZ > and own that namespace henceforth. In general, I think we should > socialise convergence around common patterns, but allowing flexibility > encourages healthy experimentation. > > Mark > > -- > Juju mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju -- gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net -- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
