- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:50:47 -0400
- To: "Narahari, Sateesh" <Sateesh_Narahari@jdedwards.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 11:25:03AM -0600, Narahari, Sateesh wrote: > >>Not really, no. CRUD doesn't have the equivalent of HTTP POST which > is the workhorse uniform semantic that enables > >>computation beyond data manipulation. For example, POSTing a > representation of an order to an order processor for the > >>purposes of ordering something, isn't representable in CRUD. > > That's easy( much easier & elegant than REST). Create Order( order > representation). > > If you are more concerned about the process of fulfilling the order, Yes, that's what I was talking about. > it > can easily be achieved with triggers. Which isn't CRUD. Anyhow, that's beside the point. CRUD semantics are not uniform and therefore not REST. I agree that CRUD, or tuple spaces, or any of a number of coordination languages make for good comparisons of the "Constrained interface" approach to SOAs. But saying REST is CRUD (for multiple interpretations of "CRUD" 8-) is incorrect. I'll respond to Mike's 1.6.2 stuff shortly ... MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 14:48:44 UTC