On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's a pretty good recent analogy for this issue, which was the Linux > task scheduler. Two very capable implementations were developed, but the one > that was chosen was done so because the people who worked on it were highly > dedicated to the task. > > I think the same criteria needs to be applied here. For people who are in > favor of the 'new' code, are you willing to accept the burden of > maintenance, patches, and support? Are you going to continue doing that even > if you change employers? for people in favor of the abdera code -- I ask the > same. > > That's really what this boils down to. If both implementations get the job > done correctly, then the decision for which one to use is simply a matter of > determining who's going to ensure success of the component. If we only have > one person who's going to work on one side and 10 people on the other, then > the choice is obvious.
Another eminently reasonable point from Kevin. Although I don't think you can always get a promise for future development in any open source project, we do have commitments from some pretty big companies to work on this. I really hope that the amount of contributions outside of Google employees increases going forward in the java api server. It's disappointingly lopsided so far, but maybe the OS Foundation will make it safer for others to devote valuable developer hours to it. I'm still motivated to work on an Abdera-based approach, and will probably carry it on in some other repository. My interest has always been more in the data portability possibilities that are appearing via AtomPub, as well as the extensibility of the OpenSocial framework. It has a lot of potential as a general purpose development platform and there's a lot of cutting-edge stuff in there that will be useful to more than just social networks. davep
