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

RE: [RTF] AC019 proposal to WSA WG

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:36:39 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4038011E1@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:40 PM
> To: Damodaran, Suresh
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [RTF] AC019 proposal to WSA WG
> Yes, but it also means something that is irrelevant to many
> architectural styles, in particular REST.  For example, it doesn't
> matter whether a GET or PUT message was delivered reliably or not,
> because you can just send another one (they're idempotent).

I've been trying to understand this position in a discussion with Paul
Prescod on xml-dist-app.  I simply don't see why this is integral to REST --
the basic read/write/update/delete operators on resource representations
*could* be reliable, and perhaps *should* be in the WSA, even if HTTP as we
know it is not.  It is clearly desireable to most web services developers to
have the infrastructure guarantee reliable delivery (or notification of
non-delivery) rather than leaving this responsibility to an application.
Insisting that reliable messaging infrastructures are somehow a bad thing
seems to be making a virtue out of HTTP's well-known inadequacies as a
reliable protocol.  "404's happen" might be good enough for the human
centric web, but it's clearly a major annoyance for web services developers,
hence a popular requirement for the WSA to define a solution to.

> Please try to work with me on the language.  The alternative may be to
> remove it altogether, because this is a lie-down-in-the-road issue for
> me.

Uh, the alternative may be to get run over :~)  The W3C process strives for
consensus, but it doesn't demand unanimity. 
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 23:36:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:57 UTC