Apps Messaging - Twin track?

[Doug Tody]

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.

 	- Doug


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
>
>