Subject: [drinks] Comments on sppp draft in general

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:37:04 -0500

This from a developer who has been looking at SPPP:

-----

The spec is deep in XML.  A simple API table of inputs, kind of response output and errors and exceptions without the XML would be a very helpful summary, and it would be a sanity check against the SOAP draft.  We are relying on the SOAP draft WSDL as authoritative.

-----

--
Dean

---

From: "Ali, Syed Wasim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:32:33 -0400

Thanks for the feedback. I admit that the domain knowledge weighs in
heavily for developers to be able to envision the various possibilities
when it comes to input to the API. SPPP XML schema attempts to limit what
can and cannot be a valid API construct. At the moment, an SPPP
implementation will have little choice but to consider all these
possibilities. In a typical real world implementation, I can imagine
over-riding rules that will limit the input to what is and isn't
applicable for a given implementation.

SOAP draft is identified in the latest SPPP draft as mandatory transport
protocol so I think the developers made the right choice.

Hope this helps.

-Syed

On 7/12/11 9:37 AM, "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>The spec is deep in XML.  A simple API table of inputs, kind of response
>output and errors and exceptions without the XML would be a very helpful
>summary, and it would be a sanity check against the SOAP draft.  We are
>relying on the SOAP draft WSDL as authoritative.
>
>-----
>
>--
>Dean
>_______________________________________________
>drinks mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks