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

RE: A viewpoint on harvesting REST

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:32:14 -0700
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02ad01c238c8$f9c1af70$d11ce8d8@beasys.com>

Given that the SOAP 1.2 allows methods in bodies and the TAG hasn't said
anything against that, seems like we're done.  No need to re-ask the
question.  That was the key review point that we already passed by.

And I certainly treat allowing methods in bodies as an architectural
principle extractable from SOAP, and it's even in running code to boot.


> > I think that we are at an impasse on how to integrate REST
> with Web services
> > from the perspective of methods names.  I believe that the
> compromise
> > position is that web services should expose GETtable URIs,
> but that any
> > other non-safe methods can be done in specific method.  The
> REST principle
> > is that all methods have to be generic.  This is the whole
> enchilada,
> > whether you have generic methods or methods in the body.  I
> could go into
> > paragraphs of prose on why I think that my middle-ground approach is
> > reasonable, but I think that won't solve the heartburn that
> the REST folks
> > have about using ONLY generic methods.
> Yup, that's the impasse alright. 8-)  But there isn't a middle ground
> here, unfortunately.  That's why I'm eager to get the architecture
> document in front of the TAG.
> On that topic, you might be interested in my blog today;
> http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/1681
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2002 15:33:51 UTC

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