RE: [cdt-dev] [DSF] SessionType
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:39 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.; 'Vladimir Prus'
> Cc: 'cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] [DSF] SessionType
> At 03:24 PM 7/8/2010, Marc Khouzam wrote:
> >If we decide
> >to break the API for other reasons later on in the Indigo release,
> >we can revisit the solution and make it simpler if you prefer.
> This gets back to my point earlier. There is a cost associated with
> not making the call early on. Up to the point where you make the
> decision to bump the major version, you have to do everything twice,
> and the first of each iteration is usually pretty cumbersome. This
> represents wasted resources on both the framework-side and the
> client-side. Whereas if you can reasonably predict that you'll
> eventually come to that decision, you can save yourself quite a bit
> of hassle and just "do it right the first time" (to quote
> Mike Holmes).
As I'm sure you know, I'm not trying to keep the API stable
for myself. If it was for me, heck, I'd up the version by two
major versions :-) I'm just trying to play it right by the
> What I'm saying is Helios is less than a month old and we're seeing
> these sort of issues surface. I suspect it's because the Helios
> release marked the start of more wide-spread adoption. Do you
> honestly think we're going to get through the next 11 months with all
> these new adopters and not have enough challenging architectural
> issues to warrant the major version bump?
That is a strong argument.
I'll post a separate email to see if anyone is against upping the
DSF-GDB version right away. The integrators that I know of have
already spoken in that direction, so let's see if others are
being more quiet.