[Debtags-devel] SOAP

[Justin B Rye]

Enrico Zini wrote:
> I would like to keep the 'protocol' facet as a big flat registry of
> protocols for/with which the application does something relevant.
> The recent thread about instant messaging has shown quite well how
> protocols can be hard to categorise, as they're pure instruments that
> can be used reused and abused at will for any purpose.

The advantage of keeping all the IM tags separate being that it lets
us pretend we don't know what users mean when they ask how to search
for messaging apps.  Oh well.  Maybe they'll all be wanting to
search for the particular ones their friends are on anyway - I 
can't claim to be basing this on extensive usability research.

> In this respect, I'd definitely go with protocol::soapand
> protocol::xmlrpc.

A flat structure here isn't going to worry me, since I didn't know
xmlrpc and corba were connected until I started looking things up.

> More generic tags like ::rpc could better belong under 'devel', I agree.
>
> To summarise, we can add:
> 
>   protocol::soam

s/m/p/

>   protocol::xmlrpc
> 
> devel::rpc is there already.  What was the problem with it?

Only the fact that RPC isn't necessarily related to development
(except in the same sense that every package has something to do
with software development).  My example of an RPC-related package
for non-developers was portmap ("the RPC portmapper"), but it's
hard to imagine why anyone would be searching for portmap in the
first place.

Meanwhile: "debtags search" has reached testing.  Yay!
-- 
JBR
Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)