Charles Daminato wrote: > Well, the RWI was initially built as a domain portfolio/customer management > interface > > The client code was initially built as a transaction entry method and > domain/product management (create/modify/renew) interface
Makes sense. > As we grew we tried to keep these together, but more and more features from > the client code crept into the RWI Sounds good. My question is, why wasn't the API advanced along with the RWI -- If the API had all the functionality of the RWI, nobody would run scripts against against the RWI's batch server anyway. > Note that providing full data access via the API opens the door to potential > abuse, so we have to be sure we do it right :) No more abuse then a (potentially) badly written script attacking the RWI, right? > It's the transition that we'll have to be careful of :) Why? Expand the API today (Realisticly -- I don't mean "today" today, but rather, as soon as it's done) -- Then get the new RWI built, possibly run the new and old RWIs at the same time for a brief period of time to allow people to transition. -- The nice thing about standards, there is enough for everyone to have their own.
