On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, jfcm wrote:
This was my initial point. We are asked to build a bicycle. We see
that we can also build a car. Let avoid building an Harley Davidson
everyone will enjoy but no one will use.
1. let build the bicycle
2. in keeping in mind what could be reused from a car production later on,
so we keep consistent.
Bicycle is pretty much useless if you want to end up with a car. If
you want a car, you would have to get rid of the bicycle and start
from scratch. OPES architecture draft explicitly says that OPES is
application agnostic. Do you have any specific objections to keeping
it this way?
0. we are asked to build at least a Geo Metro
1. let's build a Honda Civic because it is not that much harder
2. later, when/if we have time/need/desire, we can build a Porsche
and a Ford truck.
But these analogies are pretty useless because nobody can define a
bicycle or a car well enough. We need more specific
objections/arguments to change the architecture draft and protocol
development process.
This is why I think we should do as you say: http. The real project
I would propose would be a redirect system upon decision of a server
(I have a real need :-). I suppose that if a few ones could have in
mind a similar application, we could confront with real life
examples.
Redirection discussion is already on the meeting agenda, so we are
moving forward. I do not see any reason to keep redirection
HTTP-specific at this time. Do you?
Then may be we could check SMTP to be sure it works well in a
different model?
And if it does not? Start from scratch? Also, when is "then"? I think
"then" should be now.
Again, if you prefer to think of just one specific protocol and use
case, that's fine, but why prohibit others from supporting more when
possible?
Alex.