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

[Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen]

2009/4/24 Arun Raghavan <arun at accosted.net>:
> 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.

I agree. However I think with all the delay we have suffered at this
point it would be very bad for the project to engage in some long
meta-discussion. If some parties do not feel inclined to implement 1.0
I can live with that. It may happen that others implement the spec
anyways. Just push onward. Like Ivan also mentioned in his latest
email about the ontology it is much easier to do a healthy discussion
having a stable base.

If Nokia require a spec that does less roundtrips to do what they want
then I think it is fair that they don't want to spend time on
something they ultimately will have to redo.

The bottom line: Let's JFD 1.0 and we can easily proceed on 2.0 in parallel.

-- 
Cheers,
Mikkel