The missing feature is mirroring/scaling/distributing. What if we just took
the exising CDDB protocol and made it work like news? That alone would be a
BIG win.
An issue to point out is firewalls. Let's not wander into using new port
numbers. Using the existing well-known port 80 seems as good an idea as
any. Most sensible system administrators hide their machines behind
firewalls. Let's make sure we can work with them for user queries.
Yes, KISS.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: August Zajonc [mailto:augustz nospam at bigfoot.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 6:10 PM
> To: cdindex nospam at freeamp.org
> Subject: Re: Reality Check and Ideas
>
>
> Uh oh... The KISS people are getting into the Second System
> Effect, just
> like the guy on the IT comittee here who suggested we throw
> out our fibre
> optic switched ethernet for cablemodems to some cable company
> somewhere...
>
> Folks, a db backend and an HTTP/XML frontend is not only not
> complicated, it
> is easy to implement for us programers... There are countless
> little widgets
> that can do http stuff for every development platform...
>
> Doing DNS is well, stupid :) There is little flexibility, how
> do you submit
> updates (another mechanisim will have to be built anways...)
> and a whole
> host of ther problems... Youch... Each DNS record contains
> ALL the fields,
> we'll be passing back gigs before we know it? With an http
> query different
> results could be returned (cover art or not etc...)
>
> Before people post with brand new ideas, perhaps they could
> point out the
> flaws in the current ideas that the idea seeks to fix, and
> what improvments
> lie ahead. Remeber, future flexibilty is key, simplicity is
> jey (plenty of
> people can host a cgi script for http lookups, how many can
> provide DNS
> servers, and all that entails?)