[Xesam] Xesam 1.0 vs Xesam 2.0
Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com
Tue Oct 14 10:53:05 PDT 2008
2008/10/7 Arun Raghavan <arunisgod at gmail.com>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
> <mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, it makes sense to keep the breakage between 1.0 and 2.0 as
> > minimal as possible.
> My main thoughts on this ("borrowed", as you can no doubt see):
> 1) Release early, release often: get the spec out and let people have
> something stable to use
> 2) Make one to throw away: it's okay if some things need to change
> radically over the API after the first version. If comaptibility can
> remain, that's good, but let's deal with that particular problem when
> we get to it. As Mikkel says, if there is a compelling reason to use
> the newer API, clients will get (re)written switch to it. And there
> are always ways to make that transition less painful.
I understand this as agreement to some degree...
Based on the responses here I'll try and add the proposal where
SearchChanged signal passes along the relevant content- and source
categories. Then when we have it written down it might be easier to discuss.
Regarding the ontology the most parts of the PIM components will have to be
removed before 1.0 as they really can't be made to make sense. Perhaps
Evgeny would care to elaborate :-) ?
Link-by-id will be part of 1.0 unless we discover some problems. Without the
nested queries (2.0 material) it will be of limited use though. Still useful
though. I'll write up a page for this asap so we can get it reviewed before
My hope is that we can roll 1.0 around Nov. 1st.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Xesam