On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Dave Warren wrote:
> > As we grew we tried to keep these together, but more and more features from
> > the client code crept into the RWI
>
> Sounds good. My question is, why wasn't the API advanced along with the
> RWI -- If the API had all the functionality of the RWI, nobody would run
> scripts against against the RWI's batch server anyway.
Many initiatives over the past year+ have been driven by timing (new
registries, etc) and we had to go with a quicker approach. This took some
resources away from doing it "better" unfortunately.
> > Note that providing full data access via the API opens the door to potential
> > abuse, so we have to be sure we do it right :)
>
> No more abuse then a (potentially) badly written script attacking the
> RWI, right?
True - just have to make sure it's done properly.
> > It's the transition that we'll have to be careful of :)
>
> Why? Expand the API today (Realisticly -- I don't mean "today" today,
> but rather, as soon as it's done) -- Then get the new RWI built,
> possibly run the new and old RWIs at the same time for a brief period of
> time to allow people to transition.
That's actually the plan :)
Charles Daminato
TUCOWS Product Manager
chuck@tucows.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:20 EDT