Re: xAP vs XPL (was Re: UKHA2003 Developments...)

[Ian Lowe]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Lidstone" <<a
href="/group/ukha_xpl/post?postID=18trNJQLgggxUk8GrIriQrXK9YDXsweyEFYLB7UGlIvFZPedJJUA0oq5aopDpw6MmRo_JnJZbBXMrA">patrick@l...</a>>
>
> XPL is a *subset* of xAP (it is based on xAP v.1). Anything that can
> be done in XPL can be done in xAP, simply by using the appropriate
> subset, with the addition of a small amount of policy.
>
> Instead of groundlessly persisting in driving a wedge between the two
> communities, why not just pool resources &amp; co-exist happily
together?

Thanks for posting your opinion Patrick. However, as we have discussed
previously off-list, I do not agree with your assessment of the differences
between xap and xpl.

xPL is absolutely *NOT* a subset of xap. It is a fork from the original
project, a development from the initial ideas posted in the first few weeks
of development. There are features present within xpl that do not exist
within xap, and vice versa. To state that they are the same is to cloud the
issue. It is equally true to say that anything which can be done in xap can
be done within xpl, with the possibility of a greater degree of
reliability,
which would suggest to me that the additional features present within xap
are simply bloat.

In things which do not matter to a great extent (such as the exact format
of
source or target addresses) they are indeed the same. In important matters
such as mandatory support for message targeting, they are fundamentally
different. We feel that we do not wish to have a complex protocol that is
forced to behave by the addition of optional policies, when a much simpler
protocol can do the job perfectly well.

The fact that you use terms like "groundlessly" demonstrates that
you do not
see, even now, that we have real technical concerns about the approach
taken
in xap. xPL exists as the result of that concern, and answers all of the
basic problems that worried us.

As I stated earlier in email, there is no point whatsoever in a protracted
discussion of these matters in the group here, it's old road that has been
well worn already. As you wished, your views on the matter are in the
public
record, as is our response.

This thread should now be considered closed.