[standards-jig] Implementation of Experimental JEPs

Nick nick at jabberstudio.org
Wed Jul 2 17:15:21 UTC 2003


An Implementors Group would be ideal. The only problem I see needing to 
accounted for would be the group's work load. As it stands, JEPs jump 
from Experimental to Draft with a bunch of revisions inbetween with no 
indication of just how much experimenting is left to do. If you had 
various stages of experimental development for a JEP such as Alpha: 
initial discussion on sjig and introduction of JEP, Beta: Most major 
revisions completed, agreement met on some of the finer details, Theta: 
last experimental stage indicating readiness for implementaions. This 
way the Theta stage would be mostly used to find the technical flaws of 
implementing the JEP and adjust for them before going to draft status. 
Changes from the Theta Experimental stage to Draft would minor, and the 
Implementors Group would not be surprised with a JEP Authors whimsical 
decision to "do a complete rewrite from-the-ground-up". In my opinion, 
formalising and possibly adding structure to the Experimental Stage of 
JEP development would encourge less bickering on s-jig, and more 
comparing of technical issues. Some JEPs currently are at the Theta 
stage and are being bickered over(like the file transfer JEPs), when we 
should be comparing implementations. If two implementations of two 
different JEPs seems solid, then push them both to draft. Just some 
thoughts on JEPs. Any comments?
-- 

Nicholas Perez
Email: 	nick at jabberstudio.org
Jabber:	nickperez at jabber.org
Home:	303.759.0574




On 2003.07.02 09:30, Richard Dobson wrote:
> 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
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> 



More information about the Standards mailing list