W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented Architectural style, and it's constraints and properties.

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:10:31 -0800
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC90810EE@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

My point is that the parameters (or entities in your definition) are not defined. In other words, the structure (the schema) of the objects passed in / out by GET, PUT and POST is not defined in advance. I would not call that an API (not even a non-standard one).

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:06 AM
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented
> Architectural style, and it's constraints and properties.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:50:34AM -0800, Ugo Corda wrote:
> > > Yah, APIs.  HTTP provides a standardized one.
> > 
> > Wait a minute. API signatures include both procedure names 
> and parameters. In HTTP I see a standardized procedure name, 
> but what about the standardized parameters?
> 
> Well, if you view the HTTP API as;
> 
> interface Resource
> {
>   Entity GET( Headers )
>   Entity PUT( Headers, Entity )
>   Entity POST( Headers, Entity )
>   etc..
> }
> 
> Then I guess that the headers and the entity would be considered
> parameters.  Some headers are standardized too, of course.  Is that
> what you had in mind?
> 
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
> 
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 12:11:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:15 GMT