On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Randy Bias <randyb@gogrid.com> wrote:
Yes. Extensions do not need to be interoperable. If it becomes clear that a given extension *does* need to be interoperable (e.g. widely adopted or lots of variations of the same theme) then that’s a red flag indicating we need to evaluate it for inclusion in the core.
Exactly - and by using registries we should be able to avoid this in most cases anyway. Process goes like this: - Extensible spec released, implementors have at it - MacroHard wants to talk about RAID levels for their upcoming BigDisk™ - It's not in the spec so they complain to the registry maintainer (us?) - We think it's a good idea (or not) and add it to the appropriate registry (or not) - JuniperBerry see MacroHard's BigDisk™ eating their lunch and want to add a similar feature to their LittleDisk™ - It's already in the registry so nothing needs to be done - bingo, interoperability This doesn't work for complicated requirements, but for that we have the good work being done by other SSOs like DMTF - we can continue to focus on what interests us and users can do everything they need without breaking out into multiple protocols. Sam On 5/14/09 12:42 PM, "Sam Johnston" <samj@samj.net> wrote:
Whoever said extensions need to be interoperable? We can do what we can (e.g. registries) but beyond that extensions are just somewhere for people to put stuff, like trunk space.
-- Randy Bias, VP Technology Strategy, GoGrid randyb@gogrid.com, (415) 939-8507 [mobile] BLOG: http://neotactics.com/blog, TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias