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

RE: REST; good for humans and machines

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:18:22 -0800
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IGEJLEPAJBPHKACOOKHNMEONCPAA.arkin@intalio.com>

Sorry about that, I assumed Roy has joined this conversation.

I actually agree with every statement Roy made aside from one discussing
cookies, which I took to be a bit too broad. But this is off topic and does
not reflect on my overall agreement with the REST architecture. I don't have
any concerns about his statements or their implication.

I did not argue that there are better architectural approach for hypermedia
applications, and Roy does not argue that REST is suitable for each and
every application of the Web and/or HTTP.

What I do have concern about are statements that make claims beyond those
expressed in Roy's thesis, or interpretations of statements made there that
seem to contradict what Roy says in his thesis regarding the scope of REST.
Specifically I am refering to:

"REST is not intended to capture all possible uses of the Web protocol
standards. There are applications of HTTP and URI that do not match the
application model of a distributed hypermedia system."

and:

"The modern Web is one instance of a REST-style architecture. Although
Web-based applications can include access to other styles of interaction,
the central focus of its protocol and performance concerns is distributed
hypermedia. REST elaborates only those portions of the architecture that are
considered essential for Internet-scale distributed hypermedia interaction."

arkin


> Arkin,
>
> > When we get to purchase order management, not all links are
> equivalent. One
> > will just retrieve the purchase order status, another would
> cancel it, yet
> > another would change the shipment time.
>
> No, GET means "retrieve a representation of the identified resource".
> It should always be safe;
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-webarch-20021115/#pr-deref-safe
>
> I suggest you respond to Roy with the rest of your concerns about his
> statement and its implications.  If the WG wants to make claims about
> REST, they should be able and prepared to defend them with the guy who
> created it, no?
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
>
Received on Sunday, 5 January 2003 20:19:00 GMT

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