James M Snell wrote:
Bill de hOra wrote:[snip]I'd be better swayed by a concrete example of how you would imagine these alternative approaches working with Atompub.If you want me to change my position, fix your spec. The onus is not on me to provide a better design.Heh, this is fun. If you think the spec needs to be fixed, it would help to have a concrete example of what you'd consider "fixed". At this point, I have zero idea what changes you'd like to see. If you do not wish or intend to offer anything concrete, even just a strawman example to illustrate the point, there's nothing I can do to "fix" it and this entire thread has been pointless.
It's too easy to couple clients and servers, mU is a known to be broken idea that was designed out of Atom and Atompub, features won't compose cleanly, features can be co-occurent, there's no versioning model, there's no deprecation model, it can be used as a protocol toolkit, it will lean people towards doing the wrong thing because it's fundamentally flawed for anything above point-to-point or lan scale systems. It has some of the problematic aspects of WS/RPC technologies. I've said most of this already.
The feature spec is weak sauce. You'll have to do much, much better than blaming to me for pointing this out. If you think that any -1 to this spec also requires an improved design option, get the chairs/secretary to say that's how this group does its work.
cheers Bill