- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:55:32 -0500
- To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM, "Patrick R. McManus" <mcmanus@datapower.com>, Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Marc Hadley writes: > I'm not denying that this is inefficient in network terms but from a > programmer perspective its very simple. I agree that it's a nuissance that you can wrap in layers that hide the nuissance. I further agree that if the community decides to implement FAF over HTTP, that many application writers will indeed benefit from such higher level APIs. Maybe or maybe not the abstractions used to hide the complexity will leak occasionally (e.g. your application won't promptly terminate for reasons that appear to be mysterious through the simple API: under the covers, something is waiting for the responses to be returned, e.g. to make sure that the handler stays registered.) We seem to agree that FAF over HTTP is inefficient in network terms, and for that reason among others I lean against standardizing it in W3C, or encouraging widespread use. I don't doubt that someone, somewhere will find it a useful compromise, and I wouldn't discourage such communities from publishing a binding to do it. -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 19:55:45 UTC