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

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

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:06:44 -0500
To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Cc: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20030228140644.D28917@www.markbaker.ca>

Hi David,

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:33:05AM -0800, Burdett, David wrote:
> You are right, you can any operation fit the REST model - don't think anyone
> would argue against that.  But that does not necessarily may it "right". For
> example a family of six could live in a one room apartment, but that's not
> necesarily a "right thing" to do. You *need* to make the solution a good fit
> to the problem you are trying to solve.


> This is why, even though you *can* do it using REST you should not for
> reasons of privacy, transport-protocol independence, message integrity as
> specified in [1], and for the need to record information over and above a
> simple "POST" as described in [2].

I disagree quite strongly.  Those are not architectural properties, and
I believe that architectural styles should be evaluated with respect to
the architectural properties they induce.

Those things you list are features of a *system*, not an architectural
style.  I could develop two REST based systems, one with no privacy, and
one with all kinds of privacy mechanisms.  The interesting question is
to look at the Web (of which a large part is a REST system), and ask if
it has the necessary privacy requirements.  If it does, great.  If it
doesn't, let's create a WG to define some specs for how to do this
within the constraints of REST.  s/privacy/your-favourite-thing

> My guess, though, is that we will just have to agree to disagree.

I hope not, but this wouldn't be the first time. 8-(

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 14:03:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:04 UTC