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

RE: REST vs. OMA (not SOAP)

From: bhaugen <linkage@interaccess.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:13:43 -0500
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <007101c22e86$da79b5a0$b8eafea9@default>

>> For example
>> > sending "AcceptOrder" might be a reasonable method name to 
>> > use when sending
>> > a purchase order to a supplier,
>> 
>> So if you want to delete a record, use HTTP DELETE, if you want to
>> revise an existing order, use PUT, etc..

> OK, and if I want to accept (change the status) of an order, I
> POST a message that contains an "indication" (method, header,
> noun, verb, whatever) of the action that should be taken and
> the new status of the resource, right?  That's how real people do
> things on the Web today, don't they?   Is this un-RESTful?

This is a really bad example. 

An order is a contract, agreed to by two parties.
Neither party can change it unilaterally.
So the one who wanted to change it would POST
a "Change Order" document (or some such name)
and it would go through the same Offer-Accept
protocol as the original order.

(Yes I know people shortcut that protocol all the time.)

None of this has much to do with SOAP+REST,
but it's not good to bake bad business practices
too deeply into your thinking.

-Bob Haugen
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 14:27:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:02 GMT