2009/9/9 Raphal Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl> > What kind of API style is appropriate for our API ? >> >> a) Specific API corresponded to each property (e.g. mawg-getCreator(); >> ) >> Pro: Enable to provide easy APIs to the developers >> Con: Can reduce the flexibility of API because whenever defining >> the new property, new API should be developed >> > > The set of properties provided by MAWG will be finite and fixed once the MA > ontology is a rec, so I cannot really see a cons here ... > > b) Common API for handling all properties via input parameter (e.g. >> get-mawg-unstructured-value( property-name, ); ) >> Pro: Can provide the better flexibility >> Con: Can provide complex API because of data type of input >> parameter and return value >> > > I can really see the 'pro' here, with a developer hat-on, I cannot see > where and why I would use get-mawg-unstructured-value( property-name, ...) > :-( > > So my preference is a big a)! > +1. Felix > > Raphal > > -- > Raphal Troncy > EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department > 2229, route des Crtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France. > e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com > Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 > Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 > Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/ <http://www.cwi.nl/%7Etroncy/> > >
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 09:31:49 UTC