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

RE: Summing up on visibility(?)

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:03:21 -0500
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E404B6E0B9@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:49 PM
> To: Miles Sabin
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Summing up on visibility(?)
> 

>Also, the architecture document doesn't list the desirable properties
it's aiming to achieve.  If it did, I would recommend that visibility be
on that list, for the reasons Roy lists at that URI above.
>

OK, that's definitely something we're thinking about, or at least in
identifying the properties of the various architectural approaches to Web
services.  I guess I see better where you're going with this visibility
thread.

> Yes, I do, but I can only talk about its role in REST, since I don't
> believe it plays a (non-redundant) role in the current WSA.  Would you
> be interested in text about that, even if it were REST-specific?


Sure, but I kinda wish you wouldn't preface your proposed text with "Web
services wishing to take advantage of the XXX properties of the REST
architectural style ...".  Remember that the target audience has no idea
what architectural style they want to use, they just have problems they need
to solve, and are looking for guidance as to how to go about them.  (Well,
in our case, it's problems that can be solved by writing a spec, not
problems to be solved by writing some code).   If you could draft something
that reflects problems (whatever problem is "solved" by visibility) rather
than solutions ("the REST architectural style") it would help us better
understand what to do with it.  But I wouldn't object if the specific role
only applies if you accept other REST principles. As an analogy,  an argment
for PUT as an interface only "applies" if you ensure that PUT operations are
idempotent. 
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 13:03:23 GMT

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