# Re: Logical Protocols Was:Re: URL requrements: Structure in string

hallam@alws.cern.ch
Thu, 14 Apr 1994 20:00:24 +0200

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: hallam@alws.cern.ch: "Re: URL requrements: Structure in string"
- Previous message: Alexander Dupuy: "Re: URL requrements: Structure in string"
- Maybe in reply to: hallam@alws.cern.ch: "Logical Protocols Was:Re: URL requrements: Structure in string"

    Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 20:00:24 +0200

    Message-Id: <9404141800.AA07252@dxmint.cern.ch>

    From: hallam@alws.cern.ch

    Subject: Re: Logical Protocols Was:Re: URL requrements: Structure in string

>> Replace instead with `as well' and we agree. We have to work out how to
>> allow multiple resolution principles though, the protocol field is
>> already in use... Coule we use multiple protocols?

>What's the point? Multiple protocols don't provide any increased
>functionality, and they do increase client complexity. While we might not
>be able to have a single URN->whatever mapping protocol that lasts
>forever, we should try to settle on one now. (with the understanding that
>we can leave in a hook to build another one later, once we have had
>experience with the first one.)

We could equally kill off all protocols apart from HTTP and do everything
with that. I was assuming that there will be more than one way to skin this
cat. Allowing multiple protocols means that we can start off with a few
experimental ones and see what happens. Then we choose one as a default and
kill the others.

I prefer to build in the hook from the start rather than try a retrofit
operation.

Experience tells me that every time I have designed a protocol I have always
decided halfway through I want to do something slightly different and would
really like some sort of version field. If you build it in from the start
new URLs can be backwards compatible.

Phill Hallam-Baker

- Next message: hallam@alws.cern.ch: "Re: URL requrements: Structure in string"
- Previous message: Alexander Dupuy: "Re: URL requrements: Structure in string"
- Maybe in reply to: hallam@alws.cern.ch: "Logical Protocols Was:Re: URL requrements: Structure in string"