Re: New Proposal: PaceSOAPGateway

[Mark Baker <distobj@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 10:49:21AM -0700, James M Snell wrote:
> The main points of the PACE are:
> 
> 1. Reduce the complexity of the core protocol by making SOAP support 
> optional

Neutral. I'm happy to go along with group concensus on that one.

> 2. Still make sure that a normative binding for SOAP is available

Neutral.

> 3. Making it so we're not trying to describe two different interface 
> strategies within a single doc (which adds complexity and potential 
> confusion)

+1 on that, but using SOAP doesn't mean using a different "interface
strategy" ... if I understand you, i.e. a different, non-HTTP interface.

> 4. Proposes a gateway-oriented architectural approach for the design of 
> the SOAP binding

For the reasons I gave in #3 above, I would need to see a more detailed
proposal to understand what is meant by "SOAP gateway" before agreeing
with this Pace.  If it's, as #3 seems to suggest, intended to define a
new, non-HTTP application interface to Atom servers, then I'd be -1; I
don't know why that would be desirable.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.          http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies   http://www.coactus.com