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

RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability

From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:51:46 -0700
Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D1007@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "'Paul Prescod'" <paul@prescod.net>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org


See comments inline marked with <db></db>.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 7:56 PM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: 'Paul Prescod'; David Orchard; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: REST, Conversations and Reliability

On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 07:06:56PM -0700, Burdett, David wrote:
> We must remember that the IT industry is building on SOAP and WSDL as the
> foundation for Web Services. If we ignore this and develop an architecture
> that is based on REST then, in my opinion, this group runs the risk of
> producing an architecture that will be, how can I say this, IGNORED.

> This would be a fundamental waste of time and effort particularly since I
> think SOAP can provide a perfectly good foundation.
> Chris, as chair, is it possible for a vote to be taken to determine
> we base our architecture on SOAP or base it on REST?

This is most disconcerting.

The debate isn't REST vs. SOAP, it's REST vs. OMA (roughly).  
<db>Apologies Mark but it seemed like a REST vs SOAP debate to me. This is
why I think the current form of the debate is damaging.</db>

SOAP can
be used with either, even though most people use it like they're using
the OMA, and without knowing any other way to use it (which apparently
explains your associating of "SOAP" with RPC/OMA).  
<db>I don't associate SOAP with just RPC, I also associate it enabling
loosely coupled co-oeprating processes whose interfaces are defined as XML
documents - as is required for the various business use cases describe in
recent emails.</db>
So if we're going to
vote, let's at least make sure we're voting on the right issue.
<db>I could not agree more.</db>

Also, I'd point out that SOAP 1.2 is architecturally a *very* different
creature than SOAP 1.1 was (at least in a visible way), via its support
of HTTP GET.  If you read the SOAP 1.2 primer, and parts of the SOAP
1.2 spec (see Anne's primer review), you'll see that basically all SOAP
1.1 based Web services are not Web friendly because they don't use GET.

We are not here to rubber stamp current practice, because current
practice is poor practice. 
<db>By this do youo mean "SOAP is poor practice"? SOAP in its current form
has many limitations, but it is a foundation on which other, richer
protocols can be built AND it is being widely used.</db>
We're here to help Web services succeed,
by leveraging those aspects of the Web that can help it succeed.  
<db>Success, to my mind is determined by adoption more than anything else.
SOAP is being adopted much more than REST - let's build on that.</db>
HTTP GET is one such aspect.  There are others.  The sooner we start looking
for them, rather than pretending we're developing an architecture from
scratch, the better off we, and the industry, will be.

Thank you.

Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 11:51:59 UTC

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