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

RE: Does RM make a qualitative difference?

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:24:19 -0700
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4049BCED6@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 5:04 PM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Does RM make a qualitative difference?
> 
> And I suggest that GET, PUT, POST, and DELETE comprise a sufficient
> coordination language for this purpose.
> 
> Yes, this is yet another attempt at espousing the *enormous* value of
> the uniform interface constraint, whose rejection by this WG, and the
> industry at large, continues to boggle my mind.

Well, at least we have lots of company on the road to perdition :-)

I would be very happy to see a section of the WSA document explaining the
REST position on coordination/reliability and pointing out the situations in
which it is likely to be most appropriate.  I'm not interested in another
"All you need is REST ... REST is all you need" permathread, however. The
WSA will (presumably) support REST principles as a MAY, but it will not
insist on them as a MUST.      

So, is there some reasonably non-doctrinaire language to describe *how* GET,
PUT, POST, and DELETE *can* provide a sufficient coordination language you
wish to propose?  
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 18:24:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:11 GMT