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


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

Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 11:38:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:02 UTC