On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:
If there's a real need for having multiple callout protocols, let's
have a discussion and see whether there's WG consensus to do so.
Otherwise, I'd suggest we focus on getting a single callout protocol
done right, and base the companion documents around this protocol.
Leaving too many options seems like a simple way to overcome
controversy and to make everybody happy, but it might not always be
the best choice in technical design.
I agree; you may have misinterpreted what we are after:
OPES architecture already assumes that adaptation can be done by means
other than OCP. Thus, we are not increasing complexity or adding
anything really new. We are simply making a statement that OPES
framework (tracing, bypass, and such) should not depend on OCP because
OCP is not the only allowed way to do adaptation!
The fact that SOAP may be used as a callout protocol is just a
side-effect of the above statement. We will not focus on SOAP. We will
focus on "our" OCP. "How to use SOAP as an OPES callout protocol"
draft may (should??) end up having a single normative sentence:
use "as is"
Does this approach work for you?
Alex.