If implementation A uses SOAP based webservices and
implementation B uses RESTful webservices they do not operate. So I think it should be specified, preferably in a different (short) document. On that basis I disagree. There might well be a implementation C that provides both a SOAP and RESTfull interface. Since that just starts the best of breed game as far as transport is concerned. Freedom here promotes adoption. My issue with not specifying it is that there might be two implementations who both have a SOAP-based interface but bind it differently. That leads to a bickering game, where no one benefits - which is a treat to adoption - Michael On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Freek Dijkstra <Freek.Dijkstra@sara.nl>wrote:
Jason wrote:
Specifying details regarding a specific implementation of an NMC- capable framework (like perfSONAR or something completely different) does not seem correct to me. I still believe that we do not want to box ourselves in by saying "use SOAP over HTTP because that's what the first generation used". The strength of this work should lie in the specification and meaning of the XML
I agree with your second statement. However, I also believe that our aim is to define a standard so that different implementations can work together. If implementation A uses SOAP based webservices and implementation B uses RESTful webservices they do not operate. So I think it should be specified, preferably in a different (short) document. Otherwise you may just as well argue that "you do not need to specify the XML syntax, just because that's what the first generation uses"
Regards, Freek
_______________________________________________ Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg