RE: ISSUE-4: Versioning Straw Poll

Hmm.

I'd suggest a different wording, because I disagree that "...are not useful in a web context and should be forsaken," but I agree they're probably not necessary here.  I say this because the scope of "limited deltas" that do not "break real-world code" are a highly contentious subject, particularly given the intranet (and extranet) application of web apps.

From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 6:59 AM
To: robin@robineko.com; public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: Re: ISSUE-4: Versioning Straw Poll

I Agree

--Jere


On 27.8.2009 15.48, "ext Robin Berjon" <robin@robineko.com> wrote:
Hi,

I'd like to get a rough view of where people stand with respect to API
versioning, so here's a straw poll. Straw polls are different from
formal votes in that they aren't binding for the WG - they just
provide for a quick snapshot to get a feel for the state of a debate.
Also, answers are per participant, not per company (though we'll
notice ballot stuffing of course).

Here's the SP:

   This house believes that explicit version mechanisms on an API, such
   as have been done elsewhere using for instance hasFeature(), a
version
   attribute on interface object, or a version parameter passed to a
   constructor are not useful in a web context and should be forsaken.
   Future revisions to given interfaces should either be strictly
additive,
   change names, or ensure that what limited deltas are made do not
break
   real-world code.

Answers can be:

   - I Agree
   - I Disagree
   - I Don't Care

Please reply by September 1st.

Thanks!

--
Robin Berjon
   robineko - setting new standards
   http://robineko.com/