On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That sounds good to me. The only concern I have is that putting the > web API in sugar-toolkit may give it more "officiality" than what we > can really support? > > Perhaps that code will need to be updated quite often as we add > features to Browse and thus be more unstable than the rest of the API?
I tend to think that we will need a flexible API policy for sugar-toolkit. Given the time pressure, resources we are under, and the amount of unknown in the things we are trying to implement, I think it's unrealistic to adopt a policy a la gtk, with full backward compatibility. Perhaps we need to start gradually freezing interfaces, to mark them as such in the documentation and, as Scott suggested, to write unit tests to ensure they are not broken. Marco _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
