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: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:42:58 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E403801241@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:36 AM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [RTF] AC019 proposal to WSA WG

> There's a cost to making it reliable.  If it isn't required, as with
> idempotent methods such as GET and PUT, then that's an enormous cost.

Sure ... I can buy an unreliable car that will *probably* get me to work
for $1000.  If it breaks down, I can simply buy another ....It's not
REQUIRED to have a reliable car, but awfully inconvenient not to.

Or I can buy a reliable car for $10,000.  Which strategy do most people who
can afford it take?   

> 404s are extremely reliable.  They let you know, 
> unequivocaly, that the
> resource is not to be found. 

You're right, of course.  I was thinking of all the reasons having nothing
to do with the actual existence of a resource that can cause a browser to
display some sort of "can't reach that page" error.  As you point out, HTTP 
has a number of other error codes for these situations.

> Maybe you can answer me this; why is it important that HTTP GET or PUT
> messages be reliably delivered? 

Because lots and lots of developers say that this is an issue, and many
member companies proprietary web services architectures have or propose a
solution to the reliability issue, and because if reliability isn't covered
in the WSA the developers will use incompatible proprietary solutions, and
the absence of a solution to a commonly cited problem in the WSA will
seriously undermine its credibility in the industry.  

Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 08:42:59 UTC

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