On Wednesday 20 April 2005 08:56 pm, Brad Thompson wrote: > Dear Zeljko Dimic, > > Thank you for your upbeat message today. However, it appears you have > missed the point expressed below and on other repeated postings. > > The message is... *Your customers are trying to tell you to provide a > documented and open system that we can work within. NOT language > specific. NOT platform specific.* Just open and clearly documented. > +1
Language specific bindings mean nothing to me, unless you have them in the language I am using, which may change. I don't understand what appears to be this resistance to creating decent XML schemas for the messages that can be posted to a url and standard xml schemas for the responses. > XML is the current standard that meets those requirements. Every > programming language and operating system has a wealth of methods, tools > and applications to process effectively designed XML. Why is Tucows > resisting this standard? > Take a look at the enom api. A brief look at it is basically what I've been talking about ... although I don't know if they have any actualy schemas, but the XML itself makes a LOT of sense compared to what I've seen with the Tucows XML. I'm not saying duplicate the enom api btw.. :-) I like Tucows and I want to stay with them, but we've outgrown the perl client and it's time we write our own. And to do that I want ... no need ... a sane API. > We are all big boys and girls out here and have the professional skills > and talents to write our own applications as needed by our businesses. > Your job is to be an open and easily used service. If you don't, other > providers will. That's the bottom line. > > Brad Thompson > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> [...] well documented XML schemas for all types of requests and > >> responses. [...] > > > > And that would work for me as well, but I would not mind just "flat > > filing" it as I described previously. > > > > And one thing to add to this is that the API response *MUST* return > > verbose error response and not just flip it's middle finger at me ...... > > Human errors and mistakes are envitable and Tucows end's logic does > > not have to map everything into a single terse useless response, give > > every error endpoint it's own unique response even if' it's just a > > number for which there is a document listing out all the error code > > numbers and what they mean. > > > >> Creating php bindings or perl bindings or any other language specific > >> bindings is just catering to 'loudest crowd' of programmers. > > > > Agreed 100% > > _______________________________________________ > > domains-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-dev -- Edward Muller - Interlix [EMAIL PROTECTED] 417-862-0573 PGP Key: http://interlix.com/Members/edwardam/pgpkeys
pgpJ9qjcX3CbV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ domains-dev mailing list [email protected] http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-dev
