[standards-jig] Implementation of Experimental JEPs

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Wed Jul 2 15:30:36 UTC 2003


Thats certainly an option but you would probably need more than one person
so you can have multiple viewpoints which will likely find more of the
problems than just one person, what about having some kind of group that
multiple implementors can join when the JEP publisher is ready for people to
start experimental implementation, where each member commits to implementing
each version of the JEP as it comes out.

Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Nick" <nick at jabberstudio.org>
To: <standards-jig at jabber.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:56 PM
Subject: [standards-jig] Implementation of Experimental JEPs


> A more suitable solution to this issue of implementation to
> experimental jeps would be if the authors of these jeps sought out
> individuals to implement them. That way the implementor and the author
> can collaborate on the issues involved, the implementor can suggest
> changes that would facilitate implementation, and the discussion
> between implementor and jep author could be carried out on the lists so
> the community can provide feedback as needed.
> As far as implementing goes, I volunteer to be an implementor if a
> enterprising jep author wishes to have one.
> -- 
>
> Nicholas Perez
> Email: nick at jabberstudio.org
> Jabber: nickperez at jabber.org
> Home: 303.759.0574
>
>
>
>
> On 2003.07.02 04:01, Richard Dobson wrote:
> > > > Why don't we tell software authors explicitly: Hey, sorry, we
> > don't have
> > > > a final JEP yet, but here is an experimental one (or just a good
> > idea).
> > > > It may change later, but if you want to take the risk, it would be
> > great
> > > > if you implement it now, so we can see if it works.
> > >
> > > That used to be the approach.  Look at JEP-0008, however.  Never
> > advanced
> > > past 'EXPERIMENTAL' but so many people wanted it that they all
> > implemented
> > > it.  Now we have many clients that do avatars, using this
> > method...and
> > then
> > > the JEP was retracted.  There was rather a bit of kerfluffle on the
> > lists
> > > about that, because not everyone was happy with the decision to
> > retract
> > > 0008.
> > >
> > > As I recall, it was because of the JEP-0008 mess that the
> > Experimental 'Do
> > > not implement' warning was added and people were discouraged from
> > > implementing experimental JEPs.
> >
> > Yup I think that was the reason, people do need to realise that it is
> > risky
> > implementing an experimental JEP, it may completely change between
> > versions
> > in an incompatible way or simply be retracted, and to be blut its tuff
> > to
> > those people who implement but dont want to update their
> > implementation
> > because it is lots of extra effort (you shouldnt have implemented it
> > in the
> > first place if you are not committed to keep your implementation up to
> > date). If you implement an experimental JEP you have the
> > responsibility to
> > keep your implementation up do date no matter where the protocol goes
> > (IMO
> > you enter into a virtual "contract" to keep your implementation up to
> > date
> > when you implement an experimental JEP).
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Standards-JIG mailing list
> > Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
>




More information about the Standards mailing list