I would if the endpoint had unreasonable expectations I wanted to ignore. She is right that different functionality ought to have different URI. If your endpoint doesn't offer that then it ought to be ignored and deprecated. If it does then you ought to use different URI.
Basically, if you are having a problem with historical support you don't want to use the method for future functionality. Make something else even if it almost exactly duplicates the old way of doing things -- although the fact that you had to make the new way argues against continuing to bang your head against the wall. I am basing my argument entirely upon the fact that you complained about the problem of old versions. If you have a problem with old versions then the software is wrong to begin with by definition. You should not want to continue using it, and ought to find a better way rather than waste time and energy trying to support it. On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Oren Hurvitz <or...@kitely.com> wrote: > This isn't overloading: it's an RPC endpoint that accepts many methods. > You wouldn't create a separate endpoint for each method, would you? > > ------------------------------ > View this message in context: Re: Optimize pushing assets to other > grids<http://opensim-dev.2196679.n2.nabble.com/Optimize-pushing-assets-to-other-grids-tp7579093p7579104.html> > Sent from the opensim-dev mailing list > archive<http://opensim-dev.2196679.n2.nabble.com/>at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > -- No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
