[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: updating OData client
Hi Ed; As you say, OData V4 does define enhancements to the V3 specification and does not represent a fundamentally new model. Note, though, that while a service that implements OData V4 can also support V3, there are
breaking changes between OData V3 and V4, such as the simplification of relationships in the data model, which means that a V3 client will not be able to read a V4 response, and a V4 client will not be able to read a V3 response without understanding the differences
in the V3 syntax. If you already support the "JSON Lite" format in OData V3, supporting the OASIS OData V4 JSON format is pretty straightforward, but there are significant differences between the OData V1-V3 "Verbose" JSON format
and the new OASIS OData V4 JSON format. OData also defines new functionality, like deltas and asynchronous processing. While clients are not required to implement such functionality, they represent incremental work for cases where the client wants
to take advantage of such functionality. All that said, 50% of the initial investment seems a reasonable ballpark for supporting the same level of functionality in a V4 compliant manner. Hopefully it would be somewhat less than that, giving you some
buffer to implement some new things like deltas, but it seems to me like a reasonable ballpark. I hope this helps, -Mike From: odata@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:odata@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Ed Bourne I’ve been asked to ball bark the effort for updating the C++ client to V4 of the spec. My guesstimate is that it should take about 50% of the effort that created it in the first place because of 2 assumptions: 1)
That OData is backwards compatible, server responses to the client are sensitive to the clients ability. 2)
Most of the changes in the V4 spec are enhancements on the existing spec, not requiring any new fundamental change (ie like the addition of JSON support in the past). That seem reasonable to the group? Anything I’m missing? cheers
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]