On 17 December 2010 13:54, Chris Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: > Comments: > > Should the question not be: Is the draft specification accepted as a > committed specification? > > If 'no' then debate/refine until it is. If 'yes' then go ahead and make the > changes to the WIAB code because WIAB does not conform to the spec.; in as > smooth a way as possible, of course :) > > There is a general issue here: Whilst applying a spec to the code may have > 'lagged' in the old Google Wave, great care must be taken so that the same > does not happen with WIAB. We need to ensure that any proposed > change/enhancement during WIAB coding is referenced back to the appropriate > spec (and if a difference, or omission, is found then the spec must be > debated/changed/created before the code is implemented). > > IMO it is imperative that spec precedes code, and not "we'll do the spec > later; we need to get the code out of the door first". > > Objections: > > None. >
Since the answer to "is X accepted as a specification" is "no" for all X, especially including the old wave id format, I don't think debating until something is formally accepted somehow should be necessary yet. In my experience it is impossible to write a working spec without implementing something at the same time. The new id spec is a draft because we haven't implemented it yet and I don't know if it makes sense. I don't believe that WIAB is at a stage where we should have nailed down specs before we can implement anything. That kind of process will put impossible drag on development. Thus I disagree that spec should precede code... yet! We will reach such a point for protocol-related things, but I don't think we're there. However, I do strongly believe design documents should precede significant code. That draft spec, which has been available for months, functions as a design for the ids, though I can build a more detailed justification if people want. A. Note: we should discuss the issue of specs before code in another thread - let's keep this one to ids. > > -- > Chris > iotawave.org > Singapore > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Wave Protocol" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<wave-protocol%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
