[TAP] sync vs async
ael13 at leicester.ac.uk
Fri Mar 6 02:01:09 PST 2009
Hi Doug, I wasn’t commenting on the case for or against any aspect of the standard, just pointing out that your language was tending to the emotive rather than discursive which I thought might be unhelpful.
I completely agree that the standards need to address the use cases of all the projects involved in the IVOA. But we also need to be open to alternatives about how those use cases are addressed. (Strictly on a personal level, I’d argue for an asynch standard as the baseline which can then be wrapped in a synch-like library for developers who need that, but I’ve not been following the arguments here closely enough to make such a case.)
On 05/03/2009 22:12, "Douglas Tody" <dtody at nrao.edu> wrote:
Hi Tony -
I agree completely - but consensus often means compromise if the
use-cases of the partners differ. The result is most likely a somewhat
broader standard than one would get if it were optimized to address
only one group's use cases. Hence for something like table access we
might want both functionality which is optimized for the most common
astronomy use cases (e.g., basic catalog access, spatial queries,
cross-match), as well as more powerful but complex and fragile
functionality (e.g., ADQL with extensions, VOSpace integration into
TAP) which is capable of addressing the more advanced use cases.
To do everything we need to do, both may be required.
It may be a mistake though to try to debate our respective use cases
within the IVOA forums. Once a national project is funded, it has a
responsibility to identify the primary use cases it intends to address
for its user community, and deliver software to the target community
supporting those use cases. We respect the right of another national
project such as AstroGrid to decide for itself how to address the
needs of its user community - we do not try to tell you guys how to
do your job. But it has been quite a difficult matter to get the
functionality included in TAP which we in NVO require to support our
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Linde, A.E. wrote:
> I?m sure every project could claim that its own approach is best for the end
> scientist: they must think so or they wouldn?t choose the approach they
> have. But it?d be more helpful to stick to arguing use cases and performance
> facts. The IVOA should be about finding consensus approaches that help all
> projects work together.
> On 05/03/2009 16:19, "Doug Tody" <dtody at nrao.edu> wrote:
> The main difference
> between NVO and the other VO projects seems to be that we also
> consider basic data access by scientists and science application
> writers to be a high priority, and want to provide simplified
> to support such applications.
> Tony Linde
> Project Manager
> Department of Physics & Astronomy
> University of Leicester
Department of Physics & Astronomy
University of Leicester
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dal