[MOBY-dev] RFC #1941 Asynchronous Service Call Proposal

[Martin Senger]

> > 1. I agree with Martin that it's probably not necessary to introduce a
> > new mobyStatus tag for asynchronous services.  I also think that new
> > data types would serve just fine.
> 
> I agree too.
>
   Welcome on the board :-)

> But there is a catch. If we use "normal" BioMOBY objects  
> to signal the status of a async queryID, it is more likely that  
> people will start to invent other, new, maybe derived objects for  
> similar things.
>
   Not sure why this is a catch. This is an advantage: I can return much
more detailed status if I want, and if I use a more specialized event
object. But regarding the new API (if approved), all such event objects
must inherit from the one defined in the API. As usual...

> > 3.  I kind of think the 'mixed' mode should be allowed.  (Mark also
> I agree again.
>
   I think that the existence of a mixed mode is already agreed on (at
least by those who expressed their views).

   Johan, you as the prime author should start to summarize what is agreed
on and what needs to be discussed further.

   Martin 

-- 
Martin Senger
   email: martin.senger at gmail.com
   skype: martinsenger
consulting for:
   International Rice Research Institute
   Biometrics and Bioinformatics Unit
   DAPO BOX 7777, Metro Manila
   Philippines, phone: +63-2-580-5600 (ext.2324)