xmldb-org-general

[Xmldb-org-general] Modifying the XML:DB standard, question 1

[Travis S. <Tra...@no...>]

I have been tasked with modifying the XML:DB XAPI standard.  I have been 
reading the lists to identify suggestions for evolving the standard.  
Some of which would require the API to be modified substantially.

I need some help determining how I should approach suggestions which 
would require incompatible changes to the API.

1.  Ignore the suggestions completely -- It is very important that the 
evolved API is compatible with the current API.
2. Case by case -- It would be nice to have the evolved API compatible 
with the current API, but we will accept some modification.
3. Lessons learned -- We will accept major modifications to the evolved API.

-Trav

Re: [Xmldb-org-general] Modifying the XML:DB standard, question 1

[Per N. <per...@us...>]

I also think it is is important to not alienate existing implementers of the 
API by introducing incompatible changes. Besides eXist and Xindice there are 
several commercial vendors as well. On the other hand, there are several 
extension to the API made by those vendors that I hope to see in the API 
(XQuery support was the last one I added heavily inspired by eXist but it is 
just an early draft). I would prefer extension, compatibility and deprecation 
rather than incompatible changes whenever possible. Of your three choices 
below I'm between 1 and 2 but closest to 2, especially if we can maintain 
backward compatibility by deprecation rather than removal of functionality.

Best regards,
Per

torsdagen den 7 april 2005 17.49 skrev Travis Stevens:
> I have been tasked with modifying the XML:DB XAPI standard.  I have been
> reading the lists to identify suggestions for evolving the standard.
> Some of which would require the API to be modified substantially.
>
> I need some help determining how I should approach suggestions which
> would require incompatible changes to the API.
>
> 1.  Ignore the suggestions completely -- It is very important that the
> evolved API is compatible with the current API.
> 2. Case by case -- It would be nice to have the evolved API compatible
> with the current API, but we will accept some modification.
> 3. Lessons learned -- We will accept major modifications to the evolved
> API.
>
> -Trav
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Xmldb-org-general mailing list
> Xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmldb-org-general

Re: [Xmldb-org-general] Modifying the XML:DB standard, question 1

[Ronald B. <rpb...@rp...>]

I lean most strongly towards 2. There's no need to arbitrarily change 
things, but I also don't feel too strongly about breaking backwards 
compatibility if there is a compelling reason. (Of note, I have no real 
stake here, as I am not using the XML:DB API.)

One thing that would help with this decision is trying to estimate how 
many people actually use the API. There is a big difference between 
breaking 10 applications or thousands of applications. For example, 
eXist supports a number of different APIs, and one could at least 
vaguely estimate their relative usage by looking at the eXist mailing 
list. Also, are there any commercial (or even private) applications that 
depend on XML:DB to allow switching of native XML database backends?

I do agree that deprecation, rather than outright deletion, of 
interfaces is preferrable.

-- Ron

Per Nyfelt wrote:

> I also think it is is important to not alienate existing implementers of the 
> API by introducing incompatible changes. Besides eXist and Xindice there are 
> several commercial vendors as well. On the other hand, there are several 
> extension to the API made by those vendors that I hope to see in the API 
> (XQuery support was the last one I added heavily inspired by eXist but it is 
> just an early draft). I would prefer extension, compatibility and deprecation 
> rather than incompatible changes whenever possible. Of your three choices 
> below I'm between 1 and 2 but closest to 2, especially if we can maintain 
> backward compatibility by deprecation rather than removal of functionality.
> 
> Best regards,
> Per

Re: [Xmldb-org-general] Modifying the XML:DB standard, question 1

[Uche O. <Uch...@fo...>]

On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 00:18 +0200, Per Nyfelt wrote:
> I also think it is is important to not alienate existing implementers of the 
> API by introducing incompatible changes. Besides eXist and Xindice there are 
> several commercial vendors as well. On the other hand, there are several 
> extension to the API made by those vendors that I hope to see in the API 
> (XQuery support was the last one I added heavily inspired by eXist but it is 
> just an early draft). I would prefer extension, compatibility and deprecation 
> rather than incompatible changes whenever possible. Of your three choices 
> below I'm between 1 and 2 but closest to 2, especially if we can maintain 
> backward compatibility by deprecation rather than removal of functionality.

+1


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net                    http://fourthought.com
http://copia.ogbuji.net                   http://4Suite.org
Use CSS to display XML, part 2 - http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/edu/x-dw-x-xmlcss2-i.html
Writing and Reading XML with XIST - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/03/16/py-xml.html
Use XSLT to prepare XML for import into OpenOffice Calc - http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-oocalc/
Schema standardization for top-down semantic transparency - http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think31.html