[Xesam] Nepomuk/Xesam future (was Re: condition of 1.0 ?)
phreedom.stdin at gmail.com
Sat May 2 17:08:50 PDT 2009
On 24 апреля 2009 23:49:20 Arun Raghavan wrote:
> 2009/4/24 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com>:
> >> - Simplified DBus API: Strigi prefers less state in the API and the
> >> Tracker team (that's us) want to someday have a proto that basically
> >> proxies this API over UDP (so we want to reduce the amount of state
> >> drastically too). We thoroughly discussed this during the Hackfest in
> >> Berlin and we were almost in tears when we finally started agreeing on
> >> the new direction. Let's not undo that.
> >> Seriously.
> > Right :-) That cost us a lot of sword fighting, but the agreement is
> > still there.
> > But from my perspective that doesn't leave Xesam 1.0 as irrelevant.
> > But as I've hinted elsewhere I don't want to impose that one anyone.
> After all the time and effort that we've put into this spec, it seems
> a little overboard to just drop it as a lost cause. Especially when I
> think a *lot* of the ground work to get first-class support for Xesam
> 1.0 has already been done (correct me if I'm wrong).
> Why not get the 1.0 implementations out there,
They are basically already out. It's not like Nokia's involvement in Tracker
scared away any core devs or something.
> and then work towards
> getting 2.0 along in a way that converges towards the goals Philip
> listed, in a shorter timeframe than 1.0 took?
Unfortunately the developement process is rarely this linear.
Actually as soon as you start implementing 2.0 you find yourself facing some
pretty hard problems such as which ontology should data extractors use etc
etc. So 1.0<->2.0 mapper here is almost inevitable.
> Especially since there
> seems to be some agreement on these already. If that process seems to
> be cumbersome, let's _fix_ it, rather than give up on the effort to
> standardise the desktop search interface altogether.
> My 0.02 $currency
More information about the Xesam