Re: New Proposal: PaceSOAPGateway

[James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

> --- Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
>
> > On 6/23/05, James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >    
> >
> > > Proposes that SOAP bindings for Atom not be
> > >      
> > defined as part of the core
> >    
> >
> > > protocol and that when defined, it should be
> > >      
> > modeled as a "SOAP Gateway
> >    
> >
> > > for Atom"
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceSOAPGateway
> >
> > +1
> >    
>
> I assume the main point of this PACE is that SOAP
> support not be made manadatory. However what exactly
> would this change mean process wise? Will there be a
> new atom-protocol-soap list created? Will development
> on SOAP bindings for Atom be placed on hold ontil the
> protocol work is done in November? 
>
>
>  

The main points of the PACE are:

1. Reduce the complexity of the core protocol by making SOAP support 
optional
2. Still make sure that a normative binding for SOAP is available
3. Making it so we're not trying to describe two different interface 
strategies within a single doc (which adds complexity and potential 
confusion)
4. Proposes a gateway-oriented architectural approach for the design of 
the SOAP binding

The chairs would probably want to weigh in on this but from my point of 
view, there is no reason why the work cannot progress in parallel so 
long as it's not interferring with the currently scheduled items in 
AtomPubIssuesList.

- James