On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Dave Warren wrote: > > 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.
Many initiatives over the past year+ have been driven by timing (new registries, etc) and we had to go with a quicker approach. This took some resources away from doing it "better" unfortunately. > > 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? True - just have to make sure it's done properly. > > 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. That's actually the plan :) Charles Daminato TUCOWS Product Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
