RE: What do we get with PUT/DELETE?

[James Robertson <jarober@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 02:31 AM 2/26/2004, you wrote:

> OK, sounds like we have dropped the gloves and are readying for the war.
> Anybody ready to consider... RSS 1.0 over SOAP?
> Thanks,

I don't think I'd consider RSS (any rev) to be comparable to SOAP....

> Randy
> http://www.kbcafe.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:24 PM
> To: Tim Bray
> Cc: atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: What do we get with PUT/DELETE?
>
>
>
> Tim Bray wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 2004, at 9:18 PM, Ken MacLeod wrote:
> >
> >> Off the top of my head, we get:
> >
> > In your list, I do not observe any entries that amount to "this will
> > make it easier to implement" or "this will enable features that would
> > not otherwise be possible."  Thus you are missing the two most
> powerful
> > engineering arguments are are facing an up-hill struggle.  In fact, it
>
> > is observable that insisting on PUT & DELETE in fact adds to the
> > difficulty of implementation in some contexts; which seems fatal to me
>
> > when the arguments in favor are so philosophical. -Tim
>
> Do the words of somebody who has actually implemented this count for
> anything?
>
> http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg01197.html
>
> Ben Trott has implemented both too, would it help if he were to weigh
> in:
>
> http://www.sixapart.com/log/2003/09/announcing_xmla.shtml
>
> - Sam Ruby
> "Rough consensus and running code"

<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView
jarober@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx