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

Re: Representing Actions (was RE: AR023.7.1 (was Re: Dead trout

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:07:40 -0500
To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030220140740.B1270@www.markbaker.ca>

On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 03:07:05PM -0800, Burdett, David wrote:
> MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES
> 
> My personal preference is for variant 6 (sorry Mark it's not URI's!) and
> here's why ...

I understand what you're saying, and you do make many valid points
(though most have been addressed for some time, such as what to do about
disclosing information in URIs).  But respectfully, you're not looking
at this from an architectural POV, which I believe is the only way to
propertly evaluate these solutions.

My preference would be for a solution that is designed within the
constraints of an architectural style that is suitable for use on the
Internet.  We know that REST is such an architectural style, as it
describes the architecture of a good part of the working Web (though
of course there are other styles in use on the Internet).  We don't know
that the style implicit in variant 6 exhibit the properties required for
Internet scale use (such as visibility), though I'd be more than happy
to learn from you why you think it might, specifically what constraints
it uses, what properties those constraints induce, and why you consider
those properties to be sufficient for deployment on the Internet.

Thanks.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 14:04:44 GMT

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