Alex Rousskov wrote:
I agree that it is easier to design with one binding in mind.
However, I am in favor of a slightly different "lazy binding"
approach: design without specific bindings until specific bindings
become necessary to proceed. Most of the issues that have been
discussed and solved so far are binding-independent. I would
suggest to postpone any binding decision until it actually becomes
necessary.
This is the approach we had in mind with the "SHOULD be protocol
agnostic" requirement. We start the design without assuming a specific
application protocol, and only when it turns out that we need to the
bind it to a specific application protocol, we'll do so - and we'll
bind to HTTP in that case.
Now, the need for such binding may arise if the "protocol-agnostic"
approach should turn out to add too much complexity - meaning we need
to strive for a good balance between generality and complexity of the
callout protocol.
I think adding support for very different application protocols on
top of a nearly finished OPES design will lead to kludges and
inferior results.
Yes!
-Markus