Points very well taken. A well documented API is first.
What we are talking about is beyond that.
Regards,
sA
At 02:32 PM 8/9/00 -0400, you wrote:
>My suggestion - and this is a very serious suggestion - is that
>Tucows/OpenSRS not spend time developing fancy client code. In fact,
>I would prefer that you supply an extremely simple client purely for
>testing and example purposes. Concentrate your effort on developing
>and documenting the API, and on your server and management interface
>stuff.
>
>If some of us want to develop a kick-ass open source client for your
>API, that's great.. perhaps there will even be several of them in
>competition. But if you spend your time developing this fancy
>software, it will just become an annoyance every time you don't get
>around to adding a new feature or fixing a problem with the back end.
>
>It's nice that you provide a complete application. As I've said
>before, I envisioned something much like OpenSRS, but if I'd had my
>way, it would have been nothing but an API, with the RSPs being
>required to develop their own apps from scratch. What OpenSRS has
>done is an order of magnitude better, particularly when it comes to
>being accessible to (and patient with) the.. er.. less technically
>oriented.. RSPs. But there are those of us who are developing our own
>front end interfaces, integrated with our existing management systems;
>we have no particular need for a fancier sample client. Those who do
>not have the resources to develop their own can use what you give them
>out of the box. I think that trying to accommodate everyone will
>be a big strain on OpenSRS's resources.
>--
>Christopher Masto Senior Network Monkey NetMonger Communications
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netmonger.net
>
>Free yourself, free your machine, free the daemon -- http://www.freebsd.org/
Scott Allan
Director OpenSRS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
