W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-jigsaw@w3.org > March to April 1997

Re: Jigsaw 2.0 !

From: Mark Friedman <mark@intraspect.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:57:48 -0700
Message-ID: <3355050C.467B71E0@intraspect.com>
To: Anselm Baird-Smith <abaird@w3.org>
CC: www-jigsaw@w3.org
My concerns have to do with quality, robustness, performance, and
timeliness. The current design is good enough for us right now. We were
depending on having that design implemented in an industrial strength
Jigsaw server. Does the current alpha5 (or your current snapshot) meet
your standards for the above criteria? If so, then I guess it's just a
question of renaming it 1.0 final.

What I would not like to see is creeping featuritis or creeping
designitis delaying a final quality release.


Anselm Baird_Smith wrote:

> Mark Friedman writes:
>  > So, will there ever be a Jigsaw 1.0 final release (i.e.
> non-alpha,
>  > non-beta)? It would be nice to have a complete, robust,
>  > stamped-as-complete Jigsaw 1.0. This is important to us, out here
> in the
>  > commercial world.
> I think I understand your concerns, but to make thing clearer, which
> one of these two sub-problems will hurt you most:
> - The change in Jigsaw major version (ie the impact it might have on
>   you or your customers)
> - The fear of having to rewrite your resources
> If one, then one way out would be to name it Jigsaw/1.0 final (it
> has
> been alpha for all that long because of that).
> If two, then I must say I have some sympathy (I have about quite a
> big
> set of resources to upgrade ;-) Be sure that I'll make my best to
> describe some reasonable procedure for upgrading. (not an uatomatic
> one though). BTW My estimate for the whole upgrade of Jigsaw is
> about
> a month (I mean once the new resource object model is agreed upon)
> Anselm.
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 1997 13:02:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:31 UTC