RE: Hydra scope

On Monday, May 12, 2014 11:50 PM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
> On 05/12/2014 04:58 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > As you know, that's in fact one of the first issues I raised:
> >
> >    https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/2
> >
> > ... but so far you are the first one to mention this. The reason it is called Operation is
> because in the end it describes a HTTP operations (or requests). I have no strong opinion on
> this and would like to hear other peoples thoughts on this.
> 
> Looking to the HTTP spec, there is no thing called "HTTP Operation"; the
> spec speaks about methods (GET, PUT, POST...).

You are right. The term operation was mostly eliminated from httpbis. It was, however, used quite a bit in RFC2616 in statements like:

  "This feature is intended to be useful in preventing races between PUT
   operations."

  "If the requested resource has not been modified since the time specified
   in this field, the server SHOULD perform the requested operation..."

  "The client cannot be guaranteed that the [DELETE] operation has been
    carried out, even if the ..."

But it doesn't really matter IMO.

> I would reserve this term for HTTP in our context. This leaves action
> and operation as possible candidates.

Yeah. I think both terms are fine and are more or less synonyms anyway.


> I agree that operation sounds RPCish but you could also argue that
> method sound OOPish.

OK.. I don't associate operation with RPC. I do associate method or procedure or function (call) with RPC. 


> I still favor operation over HTTP because it is a plastic term in
> computer science while
> action is not used in the domain of distributed systems -- see the
> corresponding Wikipedia articles:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation

>From those two pages, it could be argued that the usage of the term "action" in UML fits: 

  "an action is a named element that is the fundamental unit of executable functionality"

But "operation" does of course as well.


> My mental model about this is, exemplified with a user registration.
> Say a new account is registered  by a HTTP POST with certain data.
> 
> So the caller conducts a _create operation_ using the HTTP POST method.
> The action is the event that happened at the point in time when he
> conducted
> the operation. The operation is not a single point in time, it has a
> start and an end.

What do our native speakers say to this? For me personally they are kind of equivalent and I could argue either way. In doubt, I'd would say we keep what we have.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 07:47:18 UTC