Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

["Nathan Yergler" <nathan AT creativecommons.org>]

On 1/7/08, Asheesh Laroia <asheesh AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
> I'm preparing liblicense for a 0.5 release.  There's been a lot of great
> work in liblicense done by people who aren't me over the last few months,
> and it's (way past) time for that work to see a general release.
>
> I'm inventorying it now to see what else should be done before 0.5.  I
> came up with an API switch I wanted to make, so I thought I'd ask the list
> about it.  (NY, this includes you - I haven't asked anyone other than my
> head about this.)  Be warned: No comments on this mean I'm going to get my
> way!
>
> We have some ll_get_* functions, like ll_get_name, ll_get_jurisdiction,
> and ll_get_version, and also a general ll_get_attribute() function.  I
> would like to remove the named ll_get_* functions and require users of the
> license to use the ll_get_attribute(license_uri, LL_ATTRIBUTE_URI_PERMITS)
> syntax.

I'm ++1 on this ;).  I think I suggested something similar late summer
and there was some push back.  Of course, times change and we're
breaking ABI compatibility anyway, so... maybe *I'll* get my way
(albeit belatedly).  I should probably point out that my opinion has
no special standing here; I'm willing to be shouted down.

I'm also in favor of shortening the constant names.  I'd probably go
so far as LL_REQUIRES, etc.

>
> Advantages:
>
> * Only one way to do it, and that way to do it extends in an obvious way
> to the other
>
> * This is a C library, so people who complain about the syntax can't
> really complain - they're already in C
> * The addition of
> * Making people aware of our constants makes it easier to show them that
> they can often re-use these constants in other RDF-exposing libraries.
>
> Impact on speed:
>
> * None: If you use our (e.g.) LL_ATTRIBUTE_URI_PERMITS constant, then we
> can do a pointer equailty check instead of a string check, which is
> practically free, so there should be no speed loss from switching to this.
>
> Impact on library usability:
>
> * Hardly any: If your text editor has known-word completion, then it's
> just as easy to expand arguments to ll_get_attribute as it is to expand
> the function name ll_get_name.
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> * Only one: It makes the calls to ll_get_name(uri) etc. look longer.  I'm
> okay with shortening e.g. LL_ATTRIBUTE_URI_REQUIRES to
> LL_ATTRIBUTE_REQUIRES or LL_ATTR_REQUIRES or even LL_REQUIRES.
>
> Your take:
>
> [This space intentionally left blank.]
>
> -- Asheesh.
>
> --
> All heiresses are beautiful.
>                 -- John Dryden
> _______________________________________________
> cc-devel mailing list
> cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
>