It is clear that the [[modular library|Many to Many]] case is a superset of [[vendor library|One to Many]] case as well as [[Semantic versioning|Few to Many]] one. It does not impose any significant complexity on the users (both [[ClientAPI|clients]] as well as [[ProviderAPI|providers]]). Given that I'd like to ask: Why not use the [[modular library|Many to Many]] style all the time and treat your users and providers fair?

It is clear that the [[modular library|Many to Many]] case is a superset of [[vendor library|One to Many]] case as well as [[Semantic versioning|Few to Many]] one. It does not impose any significant complexity on the users (both [[ClientAPI|clients]] as well as [[ProviderAPI|providers]]). Given that I'd like to ask: Why not use the [[modular library|Many to Many]] style all the time and treat your users and providers fair?

Often there is more than one type of ''"users"'' of an [[API]]. As [[3SidesToEveryAPI]] explains, there is always at least the [[API]] author point of view and [[ClientAPI|API user]] point of view. But from time to time there may be even more parties involved in design and consumption of some [[API]]. Depending on how closely related to the [[API]] specification and implementation those are, we can group them into [[API]] [[proximity]] categories.

Often there is more than one type of ''"users"'' of an [[API]]. As [[3SidesToEveryAPI]] explains, there is always at least the [[API]] author point of view and [[ClientAPI|API user]] point of view. But from time to time there may be even more parties involved in design and consumption of some [[API]]. Depending on how closely related to the [[API]] specification and implementation those are, we can group them into [[API]] [[proximity]] categories.

Let's ignore the most distant group of developers for now. Those use [[ClientAPI]] - e.g. only make calls into existing [[API]] objects, but don't implement them (to provide their implementations to others). Let's only remember that there is always much more [[ClientAPI|users of an API]] and let's call their amoung ''many'' in the following paragraphs.

Let's ignore the most distant group of developers for now. Those use [[ClientAPI]] - e.g. only make calls into existing [[API]] objects, but don't implement them (to provide their implementations to others). Let's only remember that there is always much more [[ClientAPI|users of an API]] and let's call their amount ''many'' in the following paragraphs.

== [[Simple library|None to Many]] ==

== [[Simple library|None to Many]] ==

== A Final Question ==

== A Final Question ==

It is clear that the [[modular library|Many to Many]] case is a superset of [[vendor library|One to Many]] case as well as [[Semantic versioning|Few to Many]] one. It does not add any significant complexity on the users (both [[ClientAPI|clients]] as well as [[ProviderAPI|providers]]). Given that I'd like to ask: Why not use the [[modular library|Many to Many]] style all the time and treat your users and providers fair?

It is clear that the [[modular library|Many to Many]] case is a superset of [[vendor library|One to Many]] case as well as [[Semantic versioning|Few to Many]] one. It does not impose any significant complexity on the users (both [[ClientAPI|clients]] as well as [[ProviderAPI|providers]]). Given that I'd like to ask: Why not use the [[modular library|Many to Many]] style all the time and treat your users and providers fair?

<comments/>

<comments/>

== A Final Question ==

== A Final Question ==

It is clear that the [[modular library|Many to Many]] case is a superset of [[vendor library|One to Many]] case as well as [[Few to Many|Semantic versioning]] one. It does not add any significant complexity on the users (both [[ClientAPI|clients]] as well as [[ProviderAPI|providers]]). Given that I'd like to ask: Why not use the [[modular library|Many to Many]] style all the time and treat your users and providers fair?

It is clear that the [[modular library|Many to Many]] case is a superset of [[vendor library|One to Many]] case as well as [[Semantic versioning|Few to Many]] one. It does not add any significant complexity on the users (both [[ClientAPI|clients]] as well as [[ProviderAPI|providers]]). Given that I'd like to ask: Why not use the [[modular library|Many to Many]] style all the time and treat your users and providers fair?

<comments/>

<comments/>

== A Final Question ==

== A Final Question ==

It is clear that the [[modular library|Many to Many]] case is a superset of [[vendor library|One to Many]] case as well as [[Few to Many]] one. It does not add any significant complexity on the users (both [[ClientAPI|clients]] as well as [[ProviderAPI|providers]]). Given that I'd like to ask: Why not use the [[modular library|Many to Many]] style all the time and treat your users and providers fair?

It is clear that the [[modular library|Many to Many]] case is a superset of [[vendor library|One to Many]] case as well as [[Few to Many|Semantic versioning]] one. It does not add any significant complexity on the users (both [[ClientAPI|clients]] as well as [[ProviderAPI|providers]]). Given that I'd like to ask: Why not use the [[modular library|Many to Many]] style all the time and treat your users and providers fair?

<comments/>

<comments/>

Often there is more than one type of ''"users"'' of an [[API]]. As [[3SidesToEveryAPI]] explains, there is always at least the [[API]] author point of view and [[ClientAPI|API user]] point of view. But from time to time there may be even more parties involved in design and consumption of some [[API]]. Depending on how closely related to the [[API]] specification and implementation those are, we can group them into [[API]] [[proximity]] categories.

Often there is more than one type of ''"users"'' of an [[API]]. As [[3SidesToEveryAPI]] explains, there is always at least the [[API]] author point of view and [[ClientAPI|API user]] point of view. But from time to time there may be even more parties involved in design and consumption of some [[API]]. Depending on how closely related to the [[API]] specification and implementation those are, we can group them into [[API]] [[proximity]] categories.

Let's ignore the most distant group of developers for now. Those use [[ClientAPI]] - e.g. only make calls into existing [[API]] objects, but don't implement them (to provide their implementations to others).

Let's ignore the most distant group of developers for now. Those use [[ClientAPI]] - e.g. only make calls into existing [[API]] objects, but don't implement them (to provide their implementations to others). Let's only remember that there is always much more [[ClientAPI|users of an API]] and let's call their amoung ''many'' in the following paragraphs.

 

Let's only remember that there is always much more [[ClientAPI|users of an API]] and let's annotate them as '''N''' in the following paragraphs.

== [[Simple library|None to Many]] ==

== [[Simple library|None to Many]] ==

Let's only remember that there is always much more [[ClientAPI|users of an API]] and let's annotate them as '''N''' in the following paragraphs.

Let's only remember that there is always much more [[ClientAPI|users of an API]] and let's annotate them as '''N''' in the following paragraphs.

== [[Simple library|Zero to N]] ==

== [[Simple library|None to Many]] ==

{{:Simple library}}

{{:Simple library}}

== [[Vendor library|1 to N]] ==

== [[Vendor library|One to Many]] ==

{{:Vendor library}}

{{:Vendor library}}

== [[Modular library|M to N]] ==

 

 

== [[Modular library|Many to Many]] ==

{{:Modular library}}

{{:Modular library}}

== A Final Question ==

== A Final Question ==

As it is clear that the [[modular library|M-N]] case is a superset of [[vendor library|1-N]] case, I'd like to ask: Why not use the [[modular library|M-N]] style all the time?

It is clear that the [[modular library|Many to Many]] case is a superset of [[vendor library|One to Many]] case as well as [[Few to Many]] one. It does not add any significant complexity on the users (both [[ClientAPI|clients]] as well as [[ProviderAPI|providers]]). Given that I'd like to ask: Why not use the [[modular library|Many to Many]] style all the time and treat your users and providers fair?

<comments/>

<comments/>

As it is clear that the [[modular library|M-N]] case is a superset of [[vendor library|1-N]] case, I'd like to ask: Why not use the [[modular library|M-N]] style all the time?

As it is clear that the [[modular library|M-N]] case is a superset of [[vendor library|1-N]] case, I'd like to ask: Why not use the [[modular library|M-N]] style all the time?

{{:Modular library}}

{{:Modular library}}

{{:Modular library}}

{{:Modular library}}