[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net]
>
> I think we can convince Google because providing an HTTP API
> alongside their SOAP one will decrease costs, not increase
> them. The HTTP one will become more popular over time and
> their bandwidth and processing costs will plummet. They can
> still be 100% buzzword compliant. I'm starting to organize
> the peasants with the pitchforks:
Can you back those claims up, or talk more about them? As they
exist already, why would having URL queries increase costs?
>>
http://www.prescod.net/rest/googleapi.html
I have been working like a fiend on an xml.com article. I'll give
preview copies to anyone who agrees to report typos or errors they
find.
>>
Cool, I'm looking forward to reading it. [The wsdl is 404ing by the
way; will you mail out when it's up?]
But what's the fuss? It's not that hard for Google to return schema
backed results from the URI query as Dare outlined [I quite like
the terse tags they use; it makes the XML easier to read]. Anyone
that wants ask by SOAP can have it, anyone that wants ask by URL
can have it. It's hardly exclusive. It just seems like a special
case of device transformation.
Bill de hÓra
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4
iQA+AwUBPME8b+aWiFwg2CH4EQJ/+wCYu8gIwrIzGjnJDirkahy5aKN1NACgu5UU
HdKONSJvjq29heF1hwGGcPc=
=Trdr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
