On 05/01/2014 11:40 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I just don't see why that is going to be useful to anyone. If you were talking about open source and/or reference implementations that the source was available for, then that makes far more sense to me. --Tom
With some protocols (thinking iCal) the implementors can produce incomparable objects. An API can clarify the object model (Oh this is how you use it), simplify application development (I do not have to spend time making sure I invent an API that will work with all of these object permutations and across vendors and vendor objects),
Look at IMAP, almost everyone started with or at least looked at the Mark Crispin code from UofW. If your core business model is making code that someone else has already defined, good luck making much money. A predefined API allows companies to adopt a protocol and stay focused on their core business model.
A working group hashed out API would always be a better starting point than alone and in a closet code that sucks cash from a company that really wants to produce a product.
And I also think that it would be nice if people would create open source code that was reviewed by a working group and referenced or hosted by the IETF.
VoIP is another example. It would save a lot of time if I knew I could use a thought out API, even if I had to implement the code.
Protocol without API == minimum. API with out code == useful. API with code == ideal. -- Doug Royer - (K7DMR.us / DougRoyer.com) DouglasRoyer@xxxxxxxxx 714-989-6135
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>