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

Re: Dynamic invocation vs. late/dynamic binding

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:14:02 +0600
Message-ID: <02f201c2b6c4$190c58c0$6f00a8c0@lankabook2>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Hi Mark,

> > I guess we're back to the REST vs. WS debate; your program cannot
> > manipulate those shapes in a meaningful way without an understanding
> > of what an oval is vs. a square.
> 
> Of course you can!  All you need in order to create an abstraction
> is commonality.  Can't you "meaningfully" treat brown cows and black
> cows as cows?
> 
> Where's the disconnect here?  Surely you've used polymorphism before?

Of course, but as you said below I didn't think you were just looking
for polymorphism. So it has nothing to do about being colorblind 
about cows.

> (which, in case you were wondering, the Shape example isn't trying to
> demonstrate .. exactly)

I'm afraid you've lost me somewhere. I don't see how a *non-human*
(or should I say inhuman? ;-)) REST automaton can just do a GET 
on an opaque URL and magically understand the data while an automaton
driving a non-REST POST with the URL contained inside the SOAP
envelope cannot. 

It seems to me that we're back to the "REST can, but others can't"
position which I cannot accept.

Sanjiva.
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2003 22:17:28 GMT

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