Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
>Farrukh,
>
>I agree 100% that having a single API is critically important. There
>already is a perception that "ebXML" is too complicated for the average
>developer, giving rise to purpose-driven registries such as UDDI.
>Please don't add more APIs!
>
>
+1
>If ebReg is to allow formats like RDF within a SubmitObjectsRequest, I
>would support adding a new type of request, call it CapabilitiesRequest,
>where a registry could list the types of XML data it can accept and
>where. I think this would greatly benefit interoperability as this type
>of functionality is added.
>
>
Actually there already exists a way for a Registry to declare its
optional capabilities. This is within the attributes of the Registry
class in RIM. No new request is needed to meet the intent of your good
suggestion.
--
Regards,
Farrukh
