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: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 17:00:30 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E405A96086@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 3:32 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3
> 
> 
>
> Hmm, it's hard to distinguish between the two lists of constraints in
> those two paragraphs.  I'd suggest that adding the RESTful constraint
> of statelessness would help to distinguish the two, since clearly much
> of the Web isn't stateless.

Good point.  I'll incorporate in next revision.

> 
> I'm surprised to see that distinction drawn.  I think it's quite clear
> that RESTful Web services can do that too, because I order 
> books through
> my browser, and people move around to deliver me those books as a
> result.  8-)

I'm struggling with the idea that an API SOA would invoke some code that
causes the books to be shipped, and a REST SOA would manipulate an
information resource that a human or software agent could interpret as a
request to ship the books.  I admit that this distinction is a bit
metaphysical ... but so is much of the "REST SOA vs API SOA" discussion :-) 
Perhaps just saying it this way is clearer than what I had drafted.  I do
NOT want to perpetuate the "REST is only for humans" misconception, I assure
you!

> 
> I thought we had agreed that REST had superior visibility than
> SOAs?  And while I agree that XML improves visibility, I strongly
> disagree that the visibility of SOAs is "good"; on the contrary, it's
> *very* poor.  I suppose this isn't the right time for that discussion,
> so I'll just raise an issue when it's published.

I've never agreed with you on that issue; I think you thought that Roy had
convinced Dave Orchard of this point at one time, but that's for him to
speak to.  I'm happy to accept "friendly amendments" to the way I stated the
visibility benefits of XML, but I truly believe that XML *is* the secret
sauce that extends visibility to the entire message, not just the protocol
metadata that classic firewalls/proxies use.   I would be happy to say
something like "as a practical matter, HTTP headers are more visible to
*today's* widely deployed intermediaries than XML is," but I think you have
something more profound in mind. And yes, I would *much* prefer for you to
raise an issue and let the Powers that Be sort it out than continue to argue
the point, because I think neither of us is likely to convince the other.  
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 17:00:37 GMT

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