dah-dah-da-daaaaah! synchrotron!

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Saturday, January 8, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> On 07.01.2011, at 19:39, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Friday, January 7, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> >> On 07.01.2011, at 01:47, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 6, 2011, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> >> Introducing custom parameter kills OCS as a standard because this means
> >> that not all clients can talk to all servers.
> > 
> > which actually isn't relevant in this case.
> 
> why? You suggest to extend an open standard with a custom parameter so that
> it only work with your server. This kills the standard.
> I think this can and should be avoided.

please read what i've written again, in particular:

* mass update checking is not actually covered in the spec (just per-item 
update timestamps)

* this is experimental, i don't know if it will work, so i am not interested 
in trying to push it into a standard until we have some working experience 
with it

* this is ok, because interop doesn't matter right now since we do, indeed, 
control both the client and the server side of it. everything will continue to 
work absolutely fine with other implementations aside from this one specific 
aspect

if the point of the spec is to suck in every single feature anyone implements 
ever it's going to become a really ugly specification full of half-baked (or 
worse) ideas. the spec is already a bit unwieldy. once we have some experience 
with implementing this specific feature set on the client side, then we can 
take it to the ocs list.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20110108/d896fdc2/attachment.sig