> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:00:49 +0200
> From: Janifer Gatenby <[log in to unmask]>
> I agree with Matthew's reticence to elaborate SRW just now in
> anticipation of needs that have not been expressed.
That depends on what we want to say in a few months' time when we're
approached by the half-dozen different user-communities Rob described
in his last message (and no doubt others that we've not anticipated).
When they come to us and ask "Is SRW suitable for our large-record
databases?", our current answer is "No, not really, but we did sort of
discuss it and then not do anything about it. If you'd like to sit on
your hands for a few months, we could have a go at exhuming the
discussion". To which they will reply, "No, forget it, we'll roll our
own protocol" (something which far too many people are already doing
in the wacky world of web-services.)
I would prefer to be able to answer their initial inquiry with a clear
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "It is only possible to live happily ever after on a day to
day basis" -- Margaret Bonnano.
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at