[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: issue: SOAP requirements

To: Dare Obasanjo <kpako@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: issue: SOAP requirements
From: jpanzer@xxxxxxx (John Panzer)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:05:08 -0800
Cc: Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@xxxxxxxxx>, Tatsuhiko Miyagawa <miyagawa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@xxxxxxxxx>, jasnell@xxxxxxxxx, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>, atom-protocol@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-protocol.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-protocol-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0RC1 (Windows/20041201)

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

...

Nobody is saying that Atom shouldn't use REST with all the HTTP verbs that half the developers out there don't even know about. However many people on the working group have stated at one time or the other that SOAP is important for their scenarios. If you don't have a technical reason for objecting to this then I'd suggest that you be productive by helping in fleshing out what is currently an underspecified aspect of the spec.

Shouldn't the people who are saying that SOAP is important for their scenarios be the ones leading the effort to fully define a SOAP interface?

-John

References:
- Re: issue: SOAP requirements
  - From: Dare Obasanjo

Prev by Date: Re: issue: SOAP requirements
Next by Date: Re: issue: SOAP requirements
Previous by thread: Re: issue: SOAP requirements
Next by thread: issue: Atom does not constrain the form the URIs...
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread