[OSC_dev] oscit registration complete !

[Gaspard Bucher]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:11 PM,  <salsaman at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On Sun, January 11, 2009 21:49, Gaspard Bucher wrote:
>> I am glad to announce that "oscit" is now a registered dns-sd service
>> type:
>>
>> http://www.dns-sd.org/ServiceTypes.html
>>
>> For those of you not familiar with dns-sd (service discovery), this is
>> what helps us use printers out of the box without configuring their
>> network interface or our machines.
>>
>> The library is advancing at a good pace. I'll keep you informed.
>>
>> Gaspard
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSC_dev mailing list
>> OSC_dev at create.ucsb.edu
>> http://lists.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/osc_dev
>>
>
>
> I think also we should try to resolve the points of contention before you
> put it up as "official" at http://rubyk.org/en/oscit
>
> Second please don't start introducing your own ideas without discussing
> them (e.g. replies starting with /.reply).
>
>
> It seems to me that you have taken the original idea (come up with a joint
> standard), and run off with your own version (oscit) with minimal
> discussion, registered it as an official standard and are now starting to
> implement it. I can understand your enthusiasm, but I suspect that if you
> continue like this then your application will be the only one using oscit.
> Thats fine if you are in a hurry, but then you should be prepared to come
> back and change things later. The standard is not ready until all of the
> participants are agreed on all of the points.
>
> Regards,
> Gabriel.
> http://lives.sourceforge.net
>
>
Hey ! No harm. Everything listed on the oscit page has been discussed
on this mailing list (the /.reply was discussed here:
http://www.nabble.com/Fwd%3A--Application-Profiles%3A-oscplanet-td21130644.html)
and it's clearly a draft (written in big blue letters).

I want to make sure this protocol works and is rock solid so I decided
to start the implementation and test the ideas that have been (sort
of) agreed so far. Once we have something implemented and working, we
can discuss what needs to be changed. I just don't what to wait for a
total agreement on everything to start working since I don't think we
can settle on something good without testing our ideas. The need for
"/.reply" for example comes from a real world situation.

Another example is the "/.reply_to": it could be dropped altogether
because the querying application could register itself as a target for
replies and it would automatically get them without needing any
"state" recorded in the server side. But this has to be tested.

I don't think it hurts anyone if I code some things and test them.

Cheers,

Gaspard