On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Doug Tody wrote:
> 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,
Yes, a list of sample use cases that a messaging system can be used for is what I'm after. However, for those of us who are used to thinking in PLASTIC terms it would be useful to get (and put somewhere for future reference) concrete examples of messaging problems which need to be solved and are not soluble using the existing PLASTIC system, alongside some which are. I'm afraid after all this debate, although I have a clear idea of (and some sympathy with) your unease with the lack of design clarity underlying PLASTIC, I still don't have a clear idea of the ways it fails to adress the real life use cases that you've got in mind. This is no doubt down to my lack of imagination - help me out!
> 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.
>
> - Doug
probably you're right, but as I say I don't currently have a very clear idea of what the "other" sorts of things are.
Mark
-- Mark Taylor Astronomical Programmer Physics, Bristol University, UK m.b.taylor@bris.ac.uk +44-117-928-8776 http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/Received on 2007-04-23Z18:35:24