RE: [Powerbox] New draft based on further collaboration and prototyping

+1

Claes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
> Sent: måndag den 7 juni 2010 15:37
> To: Ricardo Varela
> Cc: Tyler Close; public-device-apis@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Powerbox] New draft based on further collaboration and
> prototyping
> 
> Hi Ricardo,
> 
> On Jun 2, 2010, at 13:16 , Ricardo Varela wrote:
> > I would like to comment on the concern that until actually the
> actions
> > from "The Prague Doctrine" [1] are completed and we can safely assume
> > that we can do a mapping from WebIDL to a RESTful interface (in this
> > specific case, to the model Powerbox proposes) I think it may be not
> a
> > good idea to include Powerbox inside the structure of DAP. The reason
> > being that the group decided to focus on Javascript APIs and by
> > extension on the formal definitions on WebIDL that may be mapped to
> > other methods. This is consistent with other initiatives (like JIL or
> > BONDI, and now WAC) so also gives us a point of alignment with them.
> > If Powerbox is not one of the alternatives that can be used into that
> > framework, we would have to basically create specific definitions for
> > it, and therefore add fragmentation.
> >
> > Moreover, just the fact that developers will have to adequate their
> > code for making calls to the APIs by one method (js objects) or
> > another (powerbox) can already add extra fragmentation, but that may
> > be considered a separate concern, less important/immediate than the
> > one i added above (as long as we can prove we can have a wrapper or
> > similar for these)
> >
> > My opinion is that it may be valid to ask if it belongs at all to the
> > items that should be discussed as part of DAP until we have solved
> > those issues. Note that I'm not opposing to include this, just to
> make
> > sure first that it doesn't create problems in the long run with the
> > expected chartered activity of the group. For example: probably would
> > be good to see the experience of implementing a couple of the current
> > DAP API proposals in the Powerbox model
> 
> The problem is that there's a chicken and egg problem. Either the WG
> has Powerbox under its umbrella, and there's a point in looking at the
> issues, or it doesn't and there isn't much motivation to solve them.
> 
> If down the line the same APIs are implemented using host objects by
> half the implementers and Powerbox by the other half, there'll be a
> small fragmentation problem (small because wrapper code to address it
> is straightforward). But we can deal with that issue later. My personal
> expectation is that it's an unlikely outcome, though.
> 
> We discussed this to death in Prague (and before) and we came to a
> consensus that Powerbox was welcome here. Unless there is new technical
> information being brought in that was unavailable at the time, I won't
> reopen the discussion. Powerbox is a DAP deliverable.
> 
> As also discussed before, it's possible that some APIs won't map well
> to REST, while others would fit very well. We've agreed that that's
> fine. For instance, I'm going to stick my neck out there and state that
> if the following do no map well the REST, then they very likely have
> design flaws: Calendar, Tasks, Contacts, File System (assuming we keep
> it), Messaging, Gallery. Capture and System Info may or may not. User
> Interaction probably won't.
> 
> So I hear your concerns but faced with similar arguments made before,
> the WG has convinced itself that it could survive and deliver
> nevertheless :)
> 
> PS: I'll report on feedback from the JSON Schema community on this
> pretty soon I think.
> 
> --
> Robin Berjon
>   robineko - hired gun, higher standards
>   http://robineko.com/
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 14:29:21 UTC