Dare Obasanjo has come up with a number of issues he has with the Atom Publishing Protocol. I am led to wonder about the timing of his complaints as the APP is close to getting an RFC number. What spurred this sudden bout of sour grapes?:
For this reason, we will likely standardize on a different RESTful protocol which I'll discuss in a later post.
Ah, so if these issues just turn out to be misunderstandings on your part then Microsoft will just use the APP and not roll out its own protocol? I'm so glad to hear that.
The first complaint is that Dare doesn't understand that an Atom Entry is a document and not an envelope. He would like to cram everything under the sun into an Entry, which isn't how the format is supposed to be used. Note, I'm saying format here, and not protocol, since that is where the problem lies - Dare should have the same complaints about syndicating the data as he has about authoring it.
This actually isn't a problem in the APP, if you have something that doesn't fit into an Entry then store it under a Media Collection. You could store vCards, vCalendars, PDFs, images, videos, etc. When you create such a collection member you actually create two resources, the media itself, and an associated Atom Entry that contains meta-data about the media. The nice part is that those other formats have their own mime-types, which is important and something I stressed when talking about WADL. Also see what Bill has to say about this.
The second complaint is one of data loss:
The problem is that there is data loss if the entry has changed between the time the client downloaded it and when it tries to PUT its changes.
Fortunately, the only real problem is that Dare seems to have only skimmed the specification. From Section 9.3:
To avoid unintentional loss of data when editing Member Entries or Media Link Entries, Atom Protocol clients SHOULD preserve all metadata that has not been intentionally modified, including unknown foreign markup as defined in Section 6 of [RFC4287].
And further, from Section 9.5:
Implementers are advised to pay attention to cache controls, and to make use of the mechanisms available in HTTP when editing Resources, in particular entity-tags as outlined in [NOTE-detect-lost-update]. Clients are not assured to receive the most recent representations of Collection Members using GET if the server is authorizing intermediaries to cache them.
Hey look, we actually reference the lost update paper that specifies how to solve this problem, right there in the spec! And Section 9.5.1 even shows an example of just such a conditional PUT failing. Who knew? And just to make this crystal clear, you can build a server that is compliant to the APP that accepts only conditional PUTs. I did, and it performed quite well at the last APP Interop.
The last complaint is a vague one about non-hierarchy. Of course, in the middle of his explanation of the problem, Dare actually admits it really isn't a problem:
This means if you want to represent an item that has children they must be referenced via a link instead of included inline.
Again, what we have here is a complaint about the format and not the protocol, as this applies just as well to syndication as it does to authoring. And yes, that's the way Atom the syndication format, and the protocol, represent relationships between items, via links. One simple, consistent, easy to explain mechanism, as opposed to a hybrid approach of allowing linking and inline inclusion, because even if you allowed inlining you would still need to allow linking because no one has found the one true hierarchy to rule them all.
In summary, the three issues are not issues at all and have very simple solutions.