>I find that approach a little bit too gun-slinger in the wild-west. If this
>was just an application, I wouldn't see as much of a point for component
>specification. >However, this is an SDK. More developers are interested in
>our component specifications than just those who want to check ou
On 2/28/2012 6:56 PM, Daniel Reicher wrote:
I agree with Alex on this one. Now we may want to vet APIs
before they get into the main SDK / release and that is what the
voting process is for. But, I wouldn't force anyone into a
pre-discussion before they start building anything
On 2/28/12 3:56 PM, "Daniel Reicher" wrote:
> Who said anything about "force"? I don't think anyone should be forced to
> do anything before coding and one path to inclusion should certainly be -
> "let coders code" and the community can figure out what to do with it
> later. That said, why pr
>
> I agree with Alex on this one. Now we may want to vet APIs before they
> get into the main SDK / release and that is what the voting process is for.
> But, I wouldn't force anyone into a pre-discussion before they start
> building anything. I want them to build it for what they need, donate
On 2/28/2012 5:07 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
On 2/28/12 1:53 PM, "Ryan Frishberg" wrote:
I find that approach a little bit too gun-slinger in the wild-west. If
this was just an application, I wouldn't see as much of a point for
component specification. However, this is an SDK. More developers ar
On 2/28/12 1:53 PM, "Ryan Frishberg" wrote:
> I find that approach a little bit too gun-slinger in the wild-west. If
> this was just an application, I wouldn't see as much of a point for
> component specification. However, this is an SDK. More developers are
> interested in our component sp
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Ryan Frishberg wrote:
> We have strong backwards-compatibility
> requirements, and having a wiki where the API proposal is clearly laid out
> with possible issues makes sense to me.
>
Maybe not during initial development, but I do agree. A very good API
specific
I find that approach a little bit too gun-slinger in the wild-west. If
this was just an application, I wouldn't see as much of a point for
component specification. However, this is an SDK. More developers are
interested in our component specifications than just those who want to
check out the ap
On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, Michael A. Labriola wrote:
> >Specs were useful as a mechanism to foster communication and coordination
> between several separate teams of QA, Doc, and management, and/or between
> several engineers working together in a coordinated fashion, but I >think
> it will b
>Specs were useful as a mechanism to foster communication and coordination
>between several separate teams of QA, Doc, and management, and/or between
>several engineers working together in a coordinated fashion, but I >think it
>will be the exception that more than one engineer will be working l
On 2/27/12 5:27 PM, "Ryan Frishberg" wrote:
> This is a good question. I think it makes sense to create a spot on the
> wiki for specifications. Some of the stuff on there might not even be
> component specifications per sey, but some topics like the Architecture
> Review Board discussed. Y
This is a good question. I think it makes sense to create a spot on the
wiki for specifications. Some of the stuff on there might not even be
component specifications per sey, but some topics like the Architecture
Review Board discussed. You can see how it was done on the old page:
http://openso
On 2/27/2012 5:24 PM, Daniel Reicher wrote:
I've seen pockets of discussion regarding component creation but nothing
formalized (it seems) and I think it might be useful to have some process
in place - even a loose one. For the purpose of opening a discussion, I'll
use a mythical ProgressBar comp
+1 on this idea - I like the concept of having a place to talk about
components and gauge interest.
Brian
On 2/27/12 3:24 PM, "Daniel Reicher" wrote:
>I've seen pockets of discussion regarding component creation but nothing
>formalized (it seems) and I think it might be useful to have som
I've seen pockets of discussion regarding component creation but nothing
formalized (it seems) and I think it might be useful to have some process
in place - even a loose one. For the purpose of opening a discussion, I'll
use a mythical ProgressBar component...
Is there a place in the wiki current
15 matches
Mail list logo
