Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@p...] > > I think we can convince Google because providing an HTTP API > alongside their SOAP one will decrease costs, not increase > them. The HTTP one will become more popular over time and > their bandwidth and processing costs will plummet. They can > still be 100% buzzword compliant. I'm starting to organize > the peasants with the pitchforks: Can you back those claims up, or talk more about them? As they exist already, why would having URL queries increase costs? >> http://www.prescod.net/rest/googleapi.html I have been working like a fiend on an xml.com article. I'll give preview copies to anyone who agrees to report typos or errors they find. >> Cool, I'm looking forward to reading it. [The wsdl is 404ing by the way; will you mail out when it's up?] But what's the fuss? It's not that hard for Google to return schema backed results from the URI query as Dare outlined [I quite like the terse tags they use; it makes the XML easier to read]. Anyone that wants ask by SOAP can have it, anyone that wants ask by URL can have it. It's hardly exclusive. It just seems like a special case of device transformation. Bill de hÓra -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.4 iQA+AwUBPME8b+aWiFwg2CH4EQJ/+wCYu8gIwrIzGjnJDirkahy5aKN1NACgu5UU HdKONSJvjq29heF1hwGGcPc= =Trdr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
