Apps Messaging - Twin track?

[Doug Tody]

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.

 	- Doug