[Xesam] Nepomuk/Xesam future (was Re: condition of 1.0 ?)

[Arun Raghavan]

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, 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? 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 $currency
-- 
Arun Raghavan
(http://nemesis.accosted.net)
v2sw5Chw4+5ln4pr6$OFck2ma4+9u8w3+1!m?l7+9GSCKi056
e6+9i4b8/9HTAen4+5g4/8APa2Xs8r1/2p5-8 hackerkey.com