by jcbollinger » Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:14 pm
I think this sounds reasonable, but I want to verify that I understand the meaning and implications of "CIF API compliance". In particular, the suggested direction seems to be away from a single programmatic interface, toward recognition of multiple interfaces (and implementations) providing certifiably equivalent features. Inasmuch as we have multiple interfaces already, but not much in the way of a standard for comparing or evaluating them, I think this is a good thing.
Is there still (or was there ever, really) any interest in a specific programmatic interface, such as might be expressed in the form of function prototypes in one or more C header files, that would be designated as the CIF API? Clearly, I have not been pushing on that (or any other) front, but I guess the question is "where do we go from here?"
Also, the quoted requirements are expressed as generically as I could manage. Is it better to leave them that way, or would there be an advantage in making some of them more specific? Or perhaps an advantage in re-expressing them in terms of the CIF data model?
I think this sounds reasonable, but I want to verify that I understand the meaning and implications of "CIF API compliance". In particular, the suggested direction seems to be away from a single programmatic interface, toward recognition of multiple interfaces (and implementations) providing certifiably equivalent features. Inasmuch as we [i]have[/i] multiple interfaces already, but not much in the way of a standard for comparing or evaluating them, I think this is a good thing.
Is there still (or was there ever, really) any interest in a specific programmatic interface, such as might be expressed in the form of function prototypes in one or more C header files, that would be designated as [b]the[/b] CIF API? Clearly, I have not been pushing on that (or any other) front, but I guess the question is "where do we go from here?"
Also, the quoted requirements are expressed as generically as I could manage. Is it better to leave them that way, or would there be an advantage in making some of them more specific? Or perhaps an advantage in re-expressing them in terms of the CIF data model?