Apps Messaging - Twin track? [was: Re: Apps Messaging - Semantics of a Message

[Mike Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, John Taylor wrote:

> In fact, we already are: people have been defining new PLASTIC  
> messages and finding new uses for the system even as we've been  
> discussing its "successor".  It would be helpful to formalise this  
> though.
> 
> What are the disadvantages of the twin track approach?
> a) Extra work - we end up doing things twice.
> b) App developers might not adopt the preliminary spec, but will wait  
> for the final one.

	You forget "c) Developers may not see a need to move to the 
'GMA' and we end up with competing specs".  I think this is the most
likely outcome and only turns the useful debate we're having now into
a pissing contest about who's messaging system is better.

	While I think it is primarily a distraction at this point, I
must admit I'd be curious to see what a 'cleaned-up plastic' would 
look like.  This would need to address the points raised so far and 
incloude a roadmap to "transition" to the new system, if it only widens
the gap it won't help things much.  Perhaps a consensus of what this
looks like reached on the plastics-dev list and put forward as an
alternative plan??  

> If we started now, we could get a working draft out not long after  
> the May interop.

	The premise with this and similar statements is that we have
*nothing* and this point and so time is critical, it usually comes in
a message that likewise says we already have plastic so why move on.
Calling a/the new system 'Grand' and 'extensive' certainly helps make
it seem more trouble than I think we're really talking about, but 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.


-Mike