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 19:38:06 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E405A960E8@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: michael.mahan@nokia.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: michael.mahan@nokia.com [mailto:michael.mahan@nokia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 9:09 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3
> 

Looks promising!   Thanks!!

> 
> REST describes a system where 
> 1. representations of resources are transfered
> 2. uniform (a set few) state change requests are identified 
> by the client

I don't understand ... could you rephrase?  Is this the famous "uniform
interface constraint", i.e. GET/PUT/POST/DELETE are the "state change
requests?"  

> 3. resources are all addressable/reachable
> 4. the server does not maintain state
> 5. resource representations may contain other resource identifiers 
>    useful for the client to explore the application search space. (my
>    parsing of the Walden/MikeC exchanges)
> 
> 'API SOA' describes a system where
> 1. representations of resources and/or state changes are transfered

Hmm, so the "arguments" to an "API" are "representations of resources"?  I
remember discussions of that idea a few months ago, but I didn't see much
sign of consensus on it.  Could this just be rephrased "application-specific
data is transferred with few constraints on message semantics" or something
like that ?

> 2. not all resources are addressable/reachable, services can 
> hide/encapsulate    resources

Yes!  This paired with REST #3 seems like a very critical distinction

> 3. the server may maintain state

This too, as others have pointed out.
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 21:38:15 GMT

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