Re: #364 Capturing more information in the method registry

So, I'm hearing a lot of agreement on adding idempotency to the registry.

Anyone object to that as closing this issue?


On 03/07/2012, at 5:28 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2012-07-03 04:24, mike amundsen wrote:
>> +1 on listing idempotent. this is _critical_ in assessing the use/impact
>> of a method. I'm not clear why it's left off the listing.
>> ...
> Anything in the registry beyond the pointer to the defining specification is just a shortcut; just because it's not in the registry doesn't mean it's not there.
> Adding new fields is possible, but we need find a balance; also, it requires deciding on the value for all methods in the list, which also doesn't come at zero cost :-)
> Best regards, Julian

Mark Nottingham

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 00:48:34 UTC