continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

[Allison Randal]

On 11/15/2010 02:36 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2010, at 05:27 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>> Unless there is some commitment to API stability, this is actively harmful.
>> If you are writing functions to be consumed generally, and not just within
>> your program/module/whatever, then you have to take on some additional
>> responsiblities.  If you don't, then whoever tries to take advantage of your
>> code is in for a world of hurt.

It's safe to assume that these lightweight apps aren't intended to be 
used as general-purpose libraries. In fact, it's a requirement of the 
ARB process, as libraries are automatically "promoted" to a full REVU 
process. I see potential for libraries to start as application-specific 
through the ARB, and then grow into something general-purpose that goes 
to REVU.

> Sure, but this is the "consenting adults" argument.  The thing is, the
> packages are going to be available in either case, so you're just putting an
> inconvenient sys.path hack in front of anyone who really wants to do it.

The tricky thing is, we're wrapping lightweight apps in an inconvenient 
sys.path hack (to make it difficult to get to application-specific 
libraries, for security and isolation) AND trying to make it easy for 
new developers at the same time. The tools just aren't up to the job yet.


The fortnightly Tech Board meeting is tomorrow, and the ARB is conscious 
of the fact that we're already a couple weeks out from UDS, and still 
blocking all applications in our queue. So we're submitting this for 
discussion in the meeting, with the understanding that we still have 
details on specific technologies to sort out, which they might request 
to be listed in detail for the next Tech Board meeting, or make a 
general decision and delegate the details to the ARB.

Allison