Re: [nm-wg] immediate future of current schemas

[Warren Matthews <warren.matthews@oit.gatech.edu>]

Hi Tanya and Loukik

I don't have such a problem with change. I think we need to iron out
what is the best solution and not be tied to any bad ideas for the sake
of backwards compatibility.

What really slows me down is the format. Manually looking over the RNC
or XML and picking out the objects is hard work. RNC is better but a
bunch of separate files and discontinuous types makes for slow progress.

If there was a list of objects that I'm supposed to support (e.g.
subject.source.cpu.cpuType), it would make life easier. And if changes
could be in the form of a diff, that would make life very easy (e.g.
dropped object X, modified object Y, added object Z).




On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 13:45, Tanya Brethour wrote:
> > >  
> > >
> > This is good to hear but there is a general feeling (fear) within the 
> > community that even after the 'new' schemas come in, they will keep 
> > changing (like what has been happening with the current schemas). The 
> > only way we can tackle this is by ensuring that later versions of the 
> > 'new' schemas are backwards compatible. I feel that this is something 
> > the group has to keep in mind right from beginning.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Loukik.
> 
> This a huge fear of mine. In addition to all the work it will take to move
> to the new schema, we will be very slow to do so if the new schemas keep
> changing and are not backwards compatible. The reason we were slow to use
> the current schema was the very fact that it took awhile to stablize.
> 
> Also, are the slides for Dan and Martin's talk at GGF12 somewhere on the
> website? I must be blind because but I can't find them :)
> 
> Thanks,
> Tanya
> 
>