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

RE: A Modest Proposal (was RE: Binding)

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:37:36 -0800
To: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <014401c2b5a1$ed8677d0$9d0ba8c0@beasys.com>

> - The most useful thing I can think of for the document would
> be to take one
> or more simple but realistic use cases and describe a RESTful and a
> conventional SOAP/WSDL approach to the problem, then assess their
> strengths/weaknesses.
>

Mike, I originally did this - even picked a 3rd approach - in May, in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002May/0401.html

Mark didn't like this then, and he still doesn't like similar approaches.
However, in spite of attempts to turn this WG into the MB WG, I guess it's
worthwhile to formally document these use cases and requirements.  Even if I
think it's going to end up at "No, that's layer foo and this is layer bar".

I will volunteer to update the document that I wrote.  I will make changes
ONLY if I see message content that clearly describes changes proposed.  The
following is an excellent critique:
>>>>
The descriptions of the design are somewhat vague.  They should be more
clear and call out specific URIs.  Instead of "Using HTTP GET and HTTP PUT
for each of these, a security intermediary
can use the HTTP method to determine which ACL is applicable", say "The
StockQuote is defined by URI http://example.org/stockquote/companyName.  GET
and PUT are supported on this URI.  The security intermediary can use these
HTTP Methods as part of securing the resource.".
<<<<

We can then choose to include these different approaches in the appropriate
documents.

Cheers,
Dave
Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 11:38:29 GMT

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