Re: CfC to change Sensor approach, not progress current draft

El 22/03/12 08:05, "Josh Soref" <jsoref@rim.com> escribió:

>Sakari wrote:
>> I think we should have something to replace the current spec before we
>drop one. Now, we have nothing.
>
>This is a bad requirement. We're dropping Feature Permissions. We decided
>it was the wrong direction. We shouldn't be required to have a
>replacement. Once we've identified an API is the wrong direction, we
>should acknowledge that.

In the wrong direction according to the criteria of people who IMO are
wrong. And that means that you were also wrong when you created a charter
asking for a generic Sensor API. So it seems you don't have criteria at all

>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>information, privileged material (including material protected by the
>solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute
>non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than
>the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this
>transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete
>this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
>reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not
>authorized and may be unlawful.
>


Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 08:08:12 UTC