                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning f...@hashref.com does not designate 74.125.82.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.171;
Subject: Re: [fluiddb-discuss] fluiddb/about vs.fluidinfo/about
References: <BANLkTinBbPb4nqg7HOtRL_tpYSouraWqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xavier Noria <f...@hashref.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinBbPb4nqg7HOtRL_tpYSouraWqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <808D58B2-721E-49E3-A112-7FF1B077A850@hashref.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 07:39:27 +0200
To: "fluiddb-discuss@googlegroups.com" <fluiddb-discuss@googlegroups.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8F190)

I for one would have no problem updating Net::Fluidinfo. Indeed when I updat=
ed the module to reflect the change (which touched an entire namespace of cl=
asses and documentation), I wondered about the about tag.

So just expressing my willingness to update the code right away. I think con=
sistency/branding trumps compatibility at this stage and would find natural t=
o rename also the fluiddb namespace.

Of course the Fluidinfo team is the one to gauge the convenience of such ren=
ame, whatever they decide is fine. In the real world inconsistencies happen,=
 and Fluidinfo is about the real world :)... hmmm that would become a consis=
tent inconsistency which is very nice indeed!

Top-posted from my iPad while having breakfast

El 8 Apr 2011, a les 00:07, otoburb <otob...@gmail.com> va escriure:
> Hi,
>=20
> I asked a question on IRC whether the fluiddb/about tag would stay as
> is, or whether there would be a push to rename the most important tag
> in the platform to fluidinfo/about.
> The current feeling of the Fluidinfo team is such a change would be
> rather disruptive, as this would clearly break API compatibility with
> current language libraries and tools.
>=20
> The idea of making 'fluidinfo' a synonym of 'fluiddb' was considered
> by Jamu Kakar (@jkakar) but this may not be straightforward for the
> following reasons:
> 1) If you specify 'fluidinfo/about', should the platform respond back
> with 'fluidinfo/*' tags, or respond back with whatever the original
> request specified?
> 2) Building in logic to detect the alias will slow down all requests
> (but only a bit), and will add more code paths to test.
>=20
> Ultimately, the question boils down to: "is it worth it?"
>=20
> Only the Fluidinfo team can make the call on this, although it would
> be good to hear back from the developers of the existing Fluidinfo
> libraries to see what they think too.
> This probably won't matter at all to end-users who will rarely (if
> ever) see the raw tag names or paths to care, but since developers
> seem to appreciate clean and consistent APIs, I figured this was worth
> a mention.
>=20
>=20
> Davison