[tdwg-tapir] ideas & TapirLite

"Döring, Markus" m.doering at BGBM.org
Thu Nov 17 16:25:18 CET 2005

talking to Anton today we were wondering if it makes sense to allow a tapir client to embed its own request-id into the tapir headers for later identification of asynchronous and distributed messages. Currently we would need to identify a message by its sendtime (vague) and source.

Does this make sense? Does anyone know how other people deal with this problem?


The other thoughts were about TapirLite.
We both think its a very bad idea to push all responsibility to the client by allowing any TAPIR service to be very minimalistic. If a client should be able to contact services that have different operators, operations and concepts, then I dont think we will get anything interoperable.

I still prefer that these things must exist in the most basic TAPIR service. Otherwise we should call it different - maybe even TAPIR Lite as a valid subset:
- all operations
- all logical operators
- the main COPs (<=> like)

Cconcepts and response models can be optional without much problems I think.
What do you think? should we sacrifice all this to have few clients but many providers?

BTW, I think we didnt specify anywhere in capabilities if GET or XML Messaging is supported. So the idea is to always have both for all services, right?


More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list