I'd be happy to make it a MUST but that would require additional buy-in from the implementation side.
>From a practical standpoint, the way I see OPTIONAL features working is that each implementation will document which OPTIONAL features it supports and which it does not. Application writers will then use that information to determine which ODP platforms they will recommend for deployment of their application. If an application requires a specific optional feature, then that may limit the recommended deployment to those platforms that offer support for it. The reason certain features are optional is that they are not deemed essential to all applications and/or their provision would be unduly burdensome for some platforms. We don't want to artificially exclude platform X from claiming that it has a conformant ODP implementation if it doesn't offer every ODP feature, so its a judgement call as to which ODP features are required of all implementations and which are optional. In this case, the group consensus is that while user meta data is a requirement, persistence is not. Bill On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Victor Kamensky <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1 September 2014 13:51, Bill Fischofer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > <snip> > > >> - Persistent data is not required for meta-data support. > > > > > > Correct, that is the current consensus. Persistence is an OPTIONAL > feature. > > I don't see OPTIONAL as a good thing. What do I do as application > writer? Do I code for both cases? Do I only choose to work with > implementation that support it? If we have unnecessary functional > fragmentation it is pushing us into direction what ODP is supposed to > solve. > > I would rather not to have than than declare something optional. > > Of course they could be cases where optional is justified but I don't > think that this is one of those. > > Thanks, > Victor >
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
