On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 at 17:37, Travis Choma wrote:
> Marcos,
>
> All good points, and definitely things we need to consider.
>
> I agree that versioning the manifest comes with a responsibility to manage
> that process and make sure new versions are being released thoughtfully and
> on reasonably long cycles,
I would consider the long cycle thing a problem (for the same reason we've
moved browsers to be evergreen).
> but I think it's a good tool to have to allow us to surmount issues relating
> to existing fields that we didn't consider at the time (I'd be interested in
> hearing other suggestions beyond versioning that addresses this without
> having to rename fields all the time). And I agree, given that the current
> manifest isn't versioned makes things tricky.
If we assume that the W3C and the Mozilla manifest are the same thing: the only
thing I can think of is that new proprietary members should be prefixed (as the
API was) going forward. Of course, this opens up the vendor prefixing
hodge-podge - so I would not be in favour of this personally.
If we assume that the W3C and the Mozilla format are totally different
manifests formats (they just kinda look the same accidentally), then we can
easily come up with some clever strategies to continue to evolve our format
without caring about the W3C format (our format serves to inform the W3C one,
as does the Google format - but that's all). This is ok - but we need to draw a
line in the sand, IHMO. Given my current thinking, I would be in favour of this
as it gives us more freedom to move.
> If we are using versioning, and the manifest is marked v2 but has v3
> properties in it, I would assume that it would be parsed as a v2 manifest and
> those v3/v4 fields would be ignored. The developer would need to correct his
> or her mistake in this case.
Right. I guess the same applies with v1 members in a v2 manifest. Note that if
we don't end up making any breaking changes to our format, we can continue on
happily with what we currently have.
> And in Google's case the phase out of v1 support is happening over the course
> of 6 months, first blocking submission and then eventual delisting apps. We'd
> have to figure out something similar to reduce the maintenance burden.
Right. I guess we would have to enforce this at the UA level also.
> Having multiple marketplaces is certainly a wrinkle. But as the platform/apis
> change we'll have to have some way of communicating to marketplaces that
> certain things/versions become deprecated over time.
>
Yes, for FxOS specific market places that would be the case.
_______________________________________________
dev-webapps mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps
