Re: AtomAPI Rev 08

[Steve Jenson <sjenson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue Dec 02 13:53:06 PST 2003, Dare Obasanjo <kpako@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> --- Steve Jenson <sjenson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking for Blogger, we've been following the
> > recommendation given at:
> >
> >
> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/DifferentlyAbledClients
> >
> > Which asks that servers support both REST and SOAP
> > Document Literal
> > and let clients use either.
> 
> I'd rather see a spec for a SOAP version of the API. I
> have issues with the current API but have been holding
> off on commenting until there was actually a SOAP
> version specified since this is what I am interested
> in implementing.

Do you mean that you're opposed to the REST version or that
you think the SOAP version is being swept under the rug? 

> For instance, I'd rather use WS-Security than some
> custom HTTP headers which have been hinted at as what
> the RESTful ATOM APi will support.

After the last API spec revision, I thought the Custom Auth Spec 
had been shot down. I implemented WSSE for both SOAP and 
REST and am surprised to see the custom auth scheme still 
being discussed.


> If no one plans to write this then I'm ready to
> volunteer to start working on a document describing
> the SOAP version of the ATOM API which will move in
> lock step with the RESTful ATOM API.

I'm for this if Joe doesn't want to write it.

> PS: What is the process for getting new  methods added
> to the API? I'd like to see a methods for subscription
> harmonization in the ATOM API.

I think the process seems to be:  1) Make a case and write 
a proposal,  2) see how many people disagree 
specifically with the proposal. 3) Fix the proposal if possible.


-steve