Hello, On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:08:43 +0000 James Tunnicliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Paul, > > Thanks for looking at this. The problem with this approach is changes > to the web interface will break the tool. Yes, but *one* tool. Previously, we had (well, still have) bunch of tool breaking in random placed and times. So, having single tool to fix is already big improvement over what we had and exactly the requirement put into implementing that. > We should put the complexity > in the server code and make clients trivial. Well, most of our clients for that are shell-based, so we need shell-based "API layer" anyway. > Adding an API to > linaro-license-protection that is independent of page rendering > wouldn't be difficult (1 day of work - it is mostly copy/paste from Famous last words ;-). We definitely need general publishing/access API for our file storage infrastructure which would cover all usecases we've been hitting for a long time. Designing, passing thru review, implementing such API is not a 1 day task though... So, the ideas are good and I appreciate them (having similar feeling for the need of it), but let's first get everyone on the same line regarding using one supported tool, and perfectalize its implementation later. In that regard, I'd really like to get feedback on licensing handling (UI interaction wise) - unless you're lawyer, you can never be sure it's done right, and I'd hate something obvious to be missed and pop up later. [] -- Best Regards, Paul Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog _______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
