Debasis,
My friend Olivier from INT is correct in characterizing concerns:
Regards, Alan
Debasis,
See comments inside your email.
Regards, Alan
Hello Debasis,
What is the procedure within which you create issue #13?
Here are some thoughts based on Brad's comments: "Early presentation indicated that there will indeed be one common overlying API (irrespective of choice of VDS or ZGY). That would help simple web applications. Such common API should be lowest common denominator as some features of openVDS may not be supported by openZgy. Desktop applications may still need to use native oZgy or oVDS libraries for read/write, for performance reasons and also in suitable language (ex: C+, Python)."
I believe that my earlier comments on this subject question the efficacy of 'one common overlying API (irrespective of choice of VDS or ZGY).' There are two aspects to consider. First, blending two different 'abstractions' into a common API may produce a common API that is less capable and less performant that either. Second, the presence in OSDU DP data content storage of two different 'formats' will hurt interoperability.
Ideally, we should choose between OVDS and OZGY to pick one. Over time, there may be the need to support two abstractions/formats - one traditional and one emerging. This is different than supporting two in parallel in terms of the impact on interoperability.
Thoughts?
Alan