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

RE: Completeness

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:52:43 -0700
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E2EAF31@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "'David Booth'" <dbooth@w3.org>
cc: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org'" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

I think that I have seen a number of attempts to do exactly what you suggest
in this discussion group and for some reason the attempts never seem to get
anywhere.  The principals in the discussion somehow don't seem to agree
about what they are talking about.

It seems to me personally that the discussion has gone well beyond the point
of diminishing returns and that it has become extremely repetitive.  

-----Original Message-----
From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org] 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:00 PM
To: Jeff Mischkinsky
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org; Mark Baker; David Orchard
Subject: Re: Completeness

[snip]

Personally, I think more concrete examples would be helpful.  It is hard to 
draw concrete conclusions from abstract arguments.  For example, I found it 
very helpful a while back when David Orchard mentioned a Web Service 
example and Paul Prescod explained, point-wise, how it could benefit by 
adding a REST discipline to it:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jul/0270.html .

Some seem to be saying that REST is not always the best choice, even if 
everything can be done in a RESTful way.  Others seem to argue that you can 
do it all with REST and have greater benefits.  I would find it helpful if: 
(a) David Orchard or someone would show a simple, specific Web Service 
application that you think is NOT well suited to REST, and explain why; and 
then (b) Mark Baker or someone else would explain specifically how and why 
they think it could benefit by being implemented in a RESTful way. .


-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 16:53:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT