W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 2002

Re: Relocating Web services

From: ias <info@ias-ww.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 09:12:15 -0500
Message-ID: <000c01c1f2ac$a3038c60$44098642@zzz>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>, "Anne Thomas Manes" <atm@systinet.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, "Www-Talk@W3. Org" <www-talk@w3.org>
how do i get off this mailing list.  i thought i already unsubscribed but
since i got this i guess i did something wrong.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <atm@systinet.com>; "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>; "Www-Talk@W3. Org"
<www-talk@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 6:34 AM
Subject: RE: Relocating Web services


> >REST is a wonderful thing. It's an incredibly powerful disruptive
> >technology. It has changed the way people search for and obtain
information
> >and entertainment. It's changing the way people compose information. It's
> >having a huge impact on every form of publishing industry (news,
magazines,
> >books, music, movies, etc.) But that doesn't mean that it should supplant
> >all other forms of distributed computing -- not even all forms of
Web-based
> >communications.
>
> Ok, so far I have been able to follow the terminology and most of the
> arguments - depending on who you talk to the web is either just 1.
http+html
> or 2. http+html+loads of other internet technologies. Web services may or
> may not fit with web 1 or 2. I personally don't see a problem with calling
> SOAP-based systems Web Services, whatever protocols are used - ok, perhaps
> Internet Services or even XML Services might have been better, but I don't
> see this as a significant issue.
>
> What I do find strange though is talking about REST in such a way though -
> surely this describes an architecture that is how Fielding et al suggest
the
> web *should* work. In the real world I'd be a little surprised and not
> entirely comfortable with retrofitting a blueprint on an existing
building,
> but just considered in terms of guidelines for extensions to the building
> then I could see the merit. Reluctantly going further, ok, if the plumbing
> breaks than you can replace the old system with a system based on the new
> design. But talking of the new blueprint, how the building would be in an
> ideal world, as if it *is* the building would strike me as most bizarre. I
> have the same reaction to the statement above.
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
>
> ---
> Danny Ayers
> <stuff> http://www.isacat.net </stuff>
>
>
Received on Friday, 3 May 2002 10:23:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:27 GMT