On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 10/21/11 3:12 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > >> >> 2) Controls, Extended operations : IMO, encoding and decoding operations >>> are by far too complex for those who have no knowledge about the way we >>> do >>> that. Actually, that mean Kiran and me, maybe Pierre-Arnaud with a bit of >>> training. Ok, this sounds really bad, but we also have to consider that >>> we >>> are not likely to add new controls or extended operations frequently. >>> >>> >>> It's really dangerous to make these kinds of presumptions even if you're >> right to a large extent. Because you just never know what itch people >> really >> will need to scratch. >> > > Well, what I feel as dangerous is that we have so few people able to write > a codec :/ > > But, yes, this assumption might perfectly prove to be damn wrong. > > Thanks for being open minded here. But I know you're very very right about the difficulty - I know I don't have the patience for this. Hence why I've been hoping for some tooling support. > >> I'm in disagreement about not making this aspect an extension point. I >> think >> it's critical for third parties to be able to use our API and make it >> successful. Perhaps we need better tooling support to assist to some >> degree >> in designing extensions and controls or maybe just some script utility. >> Who >> knows what can happen in this area. >> > > Don't get me wrong : they *have* to be extension point, but we can live > with what we have for 2.0. > > OK > We will have to inject more controls and more extended operation support, > more specifically in the API, that's a fact. > > However, I consider that it can be done later, with minor versions (1.0.1, > etc). > > OK thanks for the clarification. I'm essentially thinking the same thing. As long as users can themselves (if they desire to be masochistic) extend the codec then we're great. I realize that with time additional controls and extended operation support will emerge most likely from our own efforts since this is so damn hard to do. It would be a wet dream if a handful of sick masochistic users decided to write all the popular controls and extended operations we have not had the time to write ourselves. I know, dream on! > >> >> I would say : wait for a future version (2.0.1 or even later). >>> >>> >>> I think we already have an extensible solution right now don't we? You >> can >> add your own control no matter how hard it is right now. >> > > Yes, using the GenericControl. However, it won't encode and decode, so it's > ok on the client side, assuming that the client inject the encoded payload. > > Not very convenient, I agree... > > Yep but the window exists for later down the line so 1.0.1 sounds just great for working more on these extensions. -- Best Regards, -- Alex
