Here is another possible approach:
We can put up these optional features to a vote, where each platform will
express their position on a feature, and we can do the same for current
applications.
If for example only one platform commits to implementing a feature, it will be
rather obvious that the feature is not worthy, unless of course all apps vote
to require it.
There will be some features that will fall off the list pretty quickly this way
I think, and our calls just might become more constructive.
{ Leo }
On Sep 2, 2014, at 9:37 AM, "Bill Fischofer"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 1 September 2014 13:51, Bill Fischofer
<[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
