If you compare something like https://docs.deviceatlas.com/apis/enterprise/java/2.0.1/DeviceApiJavadoc/mobi/mtld/da/Property.html with http://www.w3.org/TR/DDR-Simple-API/#sec-PropertyValue
or https://docs.deviceatlas.com/apis/enterprise/java/2.0.1/DeviceApiJavadoc/mobi/mtld/da/PropertyName.html with http://www.w3.org/TR/DDR-Simple-API/#sec-PropertyName Everyone who knows Java well enough will understand, the "pattern" layed by W3C is respected by DeviceAtlas API. If you want to reinvent the wheel, or call things completely different, go ahead, but you must not call it W3C compliant any more then. It's not even about directly implementing the W3C JAR or its interrfaces, but a "behavioral" compatibility (W3C doesn't have a TCK like the JCP does, but you see, APIs by DeviceAtlas and a few other vendors were at least reviewed once and found compliant: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/drafts/api/test-report.html How does our "new" API look like in this matrix?[?] The OpenDDR contribution passes every single one because it directly implements the "Spec" JAR by W3C. If we care about this compliance, the "new" API isn't complete or 1.x ready until it can provide a similar compatibility (regardless of the name, but at least certain methods should be comparable) Werner On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> wrote: > @Eberhard, is it possible to generate a JavaDoc like documentation for the > .NET client somewhere? > > Briefly probing the code I could not see much similarity with the W3C > recommendation: > http://www.w3.org/TR/DDR-Simple-API/#sec-interfaces > > Note, these abstract interfaces are more or less like UML, you don't have > to generate code from it but the overall behavior should match. > DeviceAtlas may have named a few classes differently, e.g. "Property" > instead of "PropertyRef" (in the literral W3C Java interface spec) but the > overall behavior is the same. > > So can you explain (both of you, also Reza) how we can claim the Java and > .NET "new" API does that now? > > As mentioned, if we chose to significantly deviate from it like WURFL, > that could be OK, but we must no longer claim to be "W3C compliant" then if > the API completely violates the recommendation or differs so much it has > nothing in common any more. > > Cheers, > Werner > > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Then what you work on is not a 1.0 release but a 1.x or 2.x release, see >> the DeviceAtlas API (and even others like WURFL probably got a bit of a >> synergy between different platforms) >> >> So instead of a rushed, incomplete "new" API the 1.0 release should be >> what has been ready and mature for the past 2 years and AFAIK would feel >> very familiar to Eberhard's .NET API. >> >> Whether or not the .NET API also gets a rewrite, we shall see, ideally >> (just take DeviceAtlas and other commercial APIs, not to mimick them but >> see their consistent behavior across platforms) it would, but for 1.0 the >> goal would be to support Java and .NET in a consistent way. >> >> Werner >> >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> While the exact names of particular classes in the recent DeviceAtlas >>> API differ a bit from W3C simple, you can see here, the behavior feels >>> almost identical in Java and .NET (and all other languages we may support >>> in the future instead of creating too many different libraries to do the >>> same thing that already works[?]) >>> >>> https://deviceatlas.com/resources/enterprise-api-documentation >>> >>> The JavaDoc and .NET equivalent feel almost identical. >>> >>> OpenDDR not only by the OpenDDR team has been adopted on GitHub, see >>> https://github.com/search?q=openddr&ref=cmdform >>> Including a port to the Play! framework and several other languages. >>> >>> So the Java API should feel along the lines of Eberhard's .NET port to >>> C#. If it matches or even directly uses W3C artifacts, so should the 1.0 >>> release for Java. >>> >>> Werner >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> See DeviceAtlas, I don't agree that dropping W3C compliance on the Java >>>> side is correct. >>>> >>>> If you want to create a "new WURFL", sure, go ahead let's drop it, but >>>> if we prefer to stay compatible with the de facto market leader here (plus >>>> one or two alternatives, semi-open like MaDDR or completely open like >>>> OpenDDR) we should maintain W3C support like they do. >>>> >>>> Werner >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:51 PM, eberhard speer jr. <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> the .Net W3C implementation follows the >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/DDR-Simple-API/ specs, to the letter. >>>>> >>>>> Like Reza, I think it's nice to have but not vital to this release. >>>>> And some kind of integration with DeviceMap still needs to happen. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> esjr >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32) >>>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >>>>> >>>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTvWUPAAoJEOxywXcFLKYc5WQH+we0ZTLfsxRhWzqpNhHj+p+k >>>>> anT2nfXK0iwz6va1VInHKEEuULMQD/FFPP33GrAj/dV4KHAKNB4w67G9TB0RcIhz >>>>> 3Y2YPtg5eLSnOyY1O6+2ncCR/PwU7Sn78V5XKrWpaxWVcLmVSt1uCvOxUXG3KZhJ >>>>> 8Jn9K2N5XiYfH+KI3JWWZhFvPu1eE6m5aS2fyEJiq3B0XfqmmiTYMa/iY/+B/Cha >>>>> SdLBBVGpIWVt/RpLqdZou0XjXwvzb/b74SGr9l0fBQA2zjDB7D9PXRAz8PbV6h96 >>>>> 8NRE2DWPL4aBxBKr1XHp1NKG8ccrbK/hf5oSnwygO2vWSyK+c4He58PCwnxe2Ec= >>>>> =GSP4 >>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
