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

RE: Binding

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:41:00 -0800
To: "'Miles Sabin'" <miles@milessabin.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <016b01c2b5c3$ecdcf8f0$9d0ba8c0@beasys.com>

When I say "finish off", I mean get to the heart of any differences.

I am also against obfuscation.  I think we agree that we should focus on the
technical aspects - like who knows what, when and how.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Miles Sabin
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 12:30 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Binding
>
>
>
> David Orchard wrote,
> > Excellent.  I'd tried to do the same earlier as well.  There's a
> > little bit more to do to finish this off.
> <snip/>
>
> Before you get _too_ enthusiastic, I'd just like to point out that I
> think there _are_ interesting ideas lurking in REST once you get past
> the proselytizing, and they don't depend on human interaction
> any more
> than any other approach.
>
> IMO, what's distinctive and interesting about REST is that it
> corresponds quite naturally to a programming model
> surprisingly similar
> to formal models of distributed and mobile systems, the Pi
> calculus in
> particular. That model is _very_ different from RPC-like programming
> models, and definitely worth consideration, especially wrt
> choreography/orchestration.
>
> I'm against obfuscation, not REST, and saddened that
> half-baked (no pun
> intended) advocacy is getting in the way of teasing out it's genuine
> merits.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Miles
>
>
Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 15:41:44 GMT

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