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

Issue 5; GET vs GetLastTradePrice

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 21:39:53 -0500
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030101213953.A31971@www.markbaker.ca>

[Roy, there's a question for you at the end, if you don't mind.
Thanks!]

My resolution for the new year is to not get side-tracked into a
wandering perma-thread.  I'm going to focus solely on the value of URIs
and GET as a superior means of retrieving data, whether a human is
nearby to interpret it or not.

FWIW, this is issue 5[1];

On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 04:57:50PM -0500, Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> I don't believe it is moot. I was NOT suggesting that GET is 
> inappropriate.
> The fact is that we added the GET MEP to SOAP1.2 HTTP binding. Again, that 
> wasn't
> the issue to which I was responding. It was the argument that you've been 
> continuing
> to harp upon, that all we need is in REST (and more specifically, that you 
> contend
> that all we need is HTTP).

I contend that there exists solutions to the problems Web services are
trying to solve, that obey all of REST's constraints, thereby inheriting
all of its desirable properties and putting it "on the Web".

Today, for the most part, yes, that means using HTTP.  As you know, I
also like SOAP when used as a protocol extension protocol (to answer
Anne's question), since it adds useful features to HTTP (and other
protocols) that HTTP doesn't have.

> > URIs and GET are a low-coordination-cost way of retrieving data.  There
> > is *NOTHING* human-specific about that.
> 
> Apparently, you missed my point entirely. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I 
> was stating
> that it is not enough. Retrieving data is one thing. Doing something 
> useful with it
> once obtained is another.

Of course.  But when you are retrieving data, why not use GET?  Why
consciously trade in the low coordination costs in the use of GET for a
higher coordination cost "getFoo()" over POST?

> We are not at the point where our software 
> systems can willy-nilly 
> retrieve data without having a clue what form it might take before it is 
> received.

I disagree.  We've been building systems like this for at least 20
years, since the Internet began.

> REST is based on the premise that the agent receiving the data has but one 
> responsibility;
> to render it for (typically) human consumption.

Let's ask Roy, as Arkin suggested.  Roy?

FWIW, this thread started here;

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Dec/thread.html#262

And the message this is a response to is;

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Dec/0267

Thanks, and happy new year to everyone.

 [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/issues/wsa-issues.html#x5

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Wednesday, 1 January 2003 21:33:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:11 GMT