Mailing-List: contact esme-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of markus.kohler@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.175 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=NoZTBduP4hdjq7hqUTQXFgzNPmQ6bOCnPf/tsdVHImcNpm+2D8xYZFUK5YrXgcbMLA
         QeBzfHK2Uy+F4OTrl0uzbP2bvSQDUKNtDztbHDZ/WxUOUDfnXnYzLf5+SmhqUTHLmZxo
         RU/IJOBh+8MhY4STtLckHqYpbc3ukfJxOLKxY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c7fc82820911041014y33036dd2vda4ce00da23e3ab6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <68f4a0e80910251728te9c1248j10f1aa99c9f7cd2e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <771905290911031021n6aa33b53q1532c04601fd6433@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c7fc82820911032328t63ac734cx97616507b902d2ef@mail.gmail.com>
	 <771905290911040043p61039939r99b3d1a602a92e8f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c7fc82820911040105t4da6857i9b98c01fdc0db632@mail.gmail.com>
	 <771905290911040158v539c016em1221acf54bbb5509@mail.gmail.com>
	 <cdbebedf0911040635y76afdeb5yd24640026b613381@mail.gmail.com>
	 <771905290911040809n24ad6a6ey9a00c1d819dfbb15@mail.gmail.com>
	 <cdbebedf0911040914w53014c35qad318a9bda4eb6b6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c7fc82820911041014y33036dd2vda4ce00da23e3ab6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:31:49 +0100
Message-ID: <771905290911050031g44923car8169ff62c8f453b5@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Patch submitted, working towards API design
From: Markus Kohler <markus.kohler@gmail.com>
To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd290840796bd04779b8ff2

--000e0cd290840796bd04779b8ff2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Vassil,
I fully agree.
Regards,
Markus

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Vassil Dichev <vdichev@apache.org> wrote:

> OK, let's start the discussion again. For the API calls which are not
> comet-related, ESME could benefit to apply the RESTful principles
> which make sense.
>
> As for Comet, my team has rejected Yammer in the past for short
> scrum-like meetings of remote teams because if everyone has to wait
> what the others have to say, the meeting is prohibitively long (and it
> takes less than 30 seconds to update one message). I don't claim that
> everyone has this need or even that we're not trying to fit a tool
> into a scenario it wasn't meant to do. But it sure is one of the cool
> factors for everyone I've demoed ESME to. If we're not different than
> the competition- laconi.ca, Yammer, present.ly, etc., then I'm not
> sure we can compete just on the speed of copying features from the
> others.
>
> At any rate, time will tell if Comet is a key differentiator or is
> dragging us down. But since we have it already, why would we give it
> up?
>
> I would even suggest that we have both APIs compete with each other
> and see which one clients would choose to use.
>
> Vassil
>

--000e0cd290840796bd04779b8ff2--