On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, John Taylor wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007, at 17:09, 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,
>> 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.
>
>
> Hi Doug - that was the point. I seeded the list with things that PLASTIC is
> able to do as it seemed a reasonable assumption that any successor protocol
> would be able to do at least as much. In my email announcing this wiki page
> I asked for contributions from people who had experience of other systems.
I will post some use-cases myself, once I get a chance. I think we will find that what was sketched out earlier (a general messaging model with message content specified separately; simplied interface for object level PLASTIC-like inter-tool messaging) will handle all these use cases.