[Council] Experimental JEP Implementations

Robert Norris rob at cataclysm.cx
Wed May 7 17:41:16 CDT 2003


> > This also brought up a discussion about namespace versioning.  I know
> > we've chatted about this before but I can't remember the outcome.  Seems
> > like we might want to have the revision number of the version in the
> > namespace. Anybody?
> > 
> > http://jabber.org/protocol/spec/1.0
> > http://jabber.org/protocol/spec/2.0
> 
> This is probably a good idea but it's a change. :) Do the revision
> numbers track the JEP revision numbers? What is the expected behavior
> when two applications are using different versions? Etc. I'll have to
> chew on this, I guess.

Since a namespace URI is opaque, the two examples above should be
interpreted as entirely different protocols. Thus, the version should
only be changed if the protocol changes in such a way that its
incompatible with the old version.

The only reason to use version numbers this way is so we can continue to
call a protocol by the same name. Eg j.o/proto/disco/2.0 is a new
service discovery protocol, that does the same kind of job as disco/1.0,
but in a different (and presumably better) way.

I would imagine that the version number wouldn't change while a JEP is
experimental, because incompatible changes don't matter at this stage.

Rob.

-- 
Robert Norris                                       GPG: 1024D/FC18E6C2
Email+Jabber: rob at cataclysm.cx                Web: http://cataclysm.cx/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://jabber.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20030508/8e357824/attachment.pgp


More information about the Council mailing list