W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > August 2002

RE: Choreography and REST

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 06:52:05 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E403C09F85@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:29 AM
> To: Martin Chapman; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Choreography and REST
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Chapman wrote:
> > 
> > Firstly lets not argue the usefulness of the factory pattern:-)
> > 
> > Secondly in your example, I could get a c_obj from a
> > trader/uddi/directory, without
> > there being any explicit make_c. 
> 
> That's a feature, not a bug.

I've lost the thread of this thread.  As I understand it, Paul was arguing
that "choregraphy" is not necessary, I think because web services developers
can "just know" what state a resource/object needs to be in in order to
invoke some service that accesses it. By analogy, there are no machine
processable, declarative descriptions of the filesystem objects, but we
somehow manage to build programs that open, close, read, write, and delete
files all the time.

So, 1) Does this summary do justice to what we're discussing in this thread?
2) Does Paul or anyone else think that "choreography" (somewhat loosely
defined, see the thread on terminology) is an intrinsically bad idea, or
merely a low priority for the WSA WG even if it is a popular idea at the
mement?  3) Do the objections stem from a "REST" viewpoint, a "semantic web"
or RDF viewpoint, or what?  

Thanks... 
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 08:52:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:04 GMT