Hi Mark -
I think the point of these use cases should be to scope out what we would like a general applications messaging protocol to do, rather than analyze the pros and cons of the current PLASTIC. On the other hand, in defining a "SAMP 1.0", it probably is reasonable to limit this primarily to the sorts of things which PLASTIC is currently used for, so long as this is seen as a step towards a more general applications messaging protocol.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Mark Taylor wrote:
> Mike,
>
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Mike Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> I put
>> myself in John's 'perfect design' camp not because I crave complexity,
>> but because plastic does not satisfy MY requirements (actual as well
>> as what I believe is needed for apps other than simple tools) for a
>> messaging system. If a plastic roadmap can't fix that, I guess I'll
>> never see the charm in it.
>
> apologies if we've covered this already and more recent parts of
> the debate have displaced it in my short term memory, but can you give one or
> more examples of which messaging requirements you have
> which cannot be satisfied by PLASTIC? It would be good to add a use
> case or two which fits this description to the wiki page:
>
> http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/ApplicationsMessagingUseCases
>
> so we can make sure that whatever we end up with does actually solve
> the problems which we need solved. I've just (belatedly) added one
> of my own which represents one of the scenarios which PLASTIC can
> handle well and which I think it's important that any replacement of
> it can do too.
>
> Mark
>
>
Received on 2007-04-23Z18:10:33