Re: IETF and APIs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue Mar 29 09:53:32 2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I think that we should move more into that business.
I see no problem with actually specifying a language-specific API when
the WG involved has the skills to do a good job.

Wow. What is the list of languages we should work on? C, C++, Javascript, Java, Python, ...?


COBOL, obviously.

More seriously, C has the benefits that an actual C API can often be rapidly pulled into another language, and if reasonably well designed can be remodelled for other languages easily.

Another is to do more and better interoperability testing and let the API developers see their deficiencies and fix them. The benefit of this is that it moves the problem to the folks with the knowledge and incentives to work on it and it takes this very expensive specification task out of the IETF's critical path.

Right, but that's in line (more or less) with what Sam went on to say in the paragraph you snipped:

"When we do not, specifying abstract interfaces we expect platforms to provide still has significant value".

It'll often be sufficient to point out the shortcomings and specify what data needs to be accessed and (roughly) what form.

I'm all in favour of this.

Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx - xmpp:dwd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
 - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]