[asterisk-dev] Asterisk 1.6 Realtime Database must use ', ' not '|' (was: Re: asterisk-dev Digest, Vol 46, Issue 47)

[Matthew Rubenstein]

	Breaking an API, especially one so fundamental but buried in nested SQL
code/strings as the DB field delimiter, is a very drastic step. Even if
deprecation of the old API were clearly documented (and I haven't seen
yet that it is, in a practical way), complaints from people whose code
depends on the old API should of course be heeded by the developers. So
far the justification has been that it's a feature that benefits future
Asterisk users, but there's no weigh in against the costs to existing
Asterisk users.

	A well supported product would include a tool for upgrading SW that's
dependent on a deprecated API into the new API, to mitigate the costs to
existing users. Such a tool, even a rudimentary one that works only on
bundled example code, would probably find a lot more third party
contributions to making it work on other code in the wild than is just
the "my way or the highway" insistence that complaints about the API
change come with patches or be ignored.

	There are all kinds of "open". Some open projects are read only, some
are read/write to a closed group, some are read/write to the public. And
read/write can apply to the code, to the repository of separate
contributions, to the documentation. And to the design and policy
process, "open minded". Asterisk is generally more open minded than this
API change and the manner of its design is playing out.


On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 12:00 -0500, asterisk-dev-request at lists.digium.com
wrote:
> Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 09:47:39 -0700
> From: Lee Howard <faxguy at howardsilvan.com>
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-dev] Asterisk 1.6 Realtime Database must use ',
>         ' not '|'
> To: Asterisk Developers Mailing List <asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com>
> Message-ID: <4836F52B.90404 at howardsilvan.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 10:33:03AM -0500, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> >> This is an open source ecosystem.  If you have a problem with one
> of these
> >> advancements, then it's incumbent upon you to point it out, and, if
> the change
> >> is seen to be justified by the developers, then you can either
> propose
> >> alternate code or accept what was changed.  Remember, meritocracy,
> not
> >> democracy.  The quality of the code that you contribute is what has
> the vote,
> >> not how big of a bully pulpit you can manage.
> 
> Yeah, this kind of comment, along with the philosophy behind it, is 
> counter-productive (i.e. it's toxic) to software development.
> 
> Users' opinions should be heard, accepted, and valued without 
> necessarily being followed-up by code patches from the user.
> 
> In software development (and I don't care whether it's closed or open 
> source) there are users and there are developers.  Developers must
> rely 
> on and respect feedback from users or the pride of the developers
> sours 
> the soup and directs the development in a direction that is not in 
> harmony with the user base.
> 
> It doesn't need to be democratic... in fact it shouldn't be... but 
> neither should it be a meritocracy.  You've got to come together and 
> agree on something that makes you both happy, and if you can't, then 
> you're at an impasse and the developer is only going to damage the 
> relationship with the user... hindering further feedback and fouling
> the 
> atmosphere.
> 
> If you're so quick to throw down the gauntlet and say "this is open 
> source", as if the availability of the source code had any relevancy
> to 
> the merit of a user's feedback, then you're poisoning the community
> with 
> that veiled challenge to do it themselves (i.e. fork).  If you really 
> valued the best interests of the software development you'd knock it
> off.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lee.
-- 

(C) Matthew Rubenstein