Today was course registration day. I got into all of the courses I wanted to–horray!
Statistics for Lab Sciences
For the last two I have to wait to be officially in but I’m dedicated to getting into them.
“It is the existence of published “open” standards which allows independant teams to develop interoperable software.
James attempts to support a number of these standards most of which are IETF RFC’s and in the areas covered by these standards the published standard is our requirements document.
This sometimes leads to confusion where behaviour is not the subject of a relevant standard, or conflict where common (de-facto) behaviour is actually at odds with a supported standard.
We believe that it is our responsibility to adhere to the published standard. If we allow our implementation to deviate it means that we are tacitly encouraging the situation whereby interoperability is no longer guarenteed by standards compliance alone, but also requires access to undocumented and possibly even commercially licenced technology. There is no easy route for a newcomer to aquire these secrets, and interoperabilty becomes something only available to the elite.
The James policy for issues of non-compliance tries to tread the fine line between a pragmatic acceptance of other people’s misinterpretation of the RFC’s and an evangelical defence of open standards as the key to freedom of interoperation.
In practice this policy is that certain well argued of cases of non-compliance which can be *safely* worked around, will be tolerated by James.
In cases (like jira issue JAMES-344 ) where variance from a published standard is required it is desirable that this functionality is disabled in James by default, it must be prominently and clearly documented that this causes James to violate the relevant standard, and should be enabled by explicit configuration, making its use a conscious decision of the user rather than an decision taken by the James team.
In cases where the required behaviour is not within the scope of any standard which James claims to support (such as behaviour which is a de-facto standard or an internet draft RFC but not yet subject of a standards track RFC) it is acceptable to implement the behaviour so long as it is adequately documented (for instance by refrence to an internet draft or other public document) and users can be clear about what to expect from James.” James Server Design Objectives