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

Re: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 15:23:04 -0400
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <001a01c314ce$15df9aa0$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>

Let's see...

API SOA, that would be...

"Application Programming Interface Service Oriented Architecture"

That's twenty syllables (count 'em) to express the concept of
motherhood.

Motherhood, in this case, means the almost ancient programming
practice of defining interfaces for software and respecting their contracts.

Of course, it's only a name.

--Walden

----- Original Message -----
From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3


>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:14 PM
> > To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3
> >
> >
> > Application interface SOA doesn't differentiate from REST as
> > HTTP is an
> > application protocol, and application interface and
> > application protocol
> > seem awfully close to me.  Maybe API SOA is the right kind of
> > language, and
> > maybe RESTless SOA is just like CGI.  Let's just embrace our
> > "bad" behaviour
>
> Let me make sure I follow: are you suggesting the terms "REST SOA" and
"API
> SOA" as the two terms?  I like it, if just because they are short and
don't
> conflict with any "memes" out there now.
>
> I guess I could live with "Custom Interface SOA" as well.
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 15:23:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:18 GMT