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

Uniformity

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 13:21:02 -0400
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030509132102.K13530@www.markbaker.ca>

On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 11:33:15AM -0400, Champion, Mike wrote:
> I should probably put a note that the relative sizes are not meant to be
> significant, but are constrained by the geometry of representing overlaps.
> Of course, anyone who has some more than rudimentary graphic skills (not to
> mention complete color vision) is welcome to tweak these.

That'd be great, thanks.

> But on to the substantive point ...[baiting hook; casting line; fishing for
> trout]
>
> Uhh, do all those CGI scripts on the Web use "uniform interface semantics"?
> If so (because they are accessed via HTTP POST, I presume)

Right.

> what makes HTML
> forms more "uniform" in their semantics than SOAP messages?  And if the
> scripts/cookies/app servers/etc. are in B but not C, then is B really much
> too large relative to C?

"Uniform" means that every method makes sense on every resource.
The interface for java.lang.Object is uniform, for example, but the
interface for java.lang.String isn't.

A typical use of SOAP (with the method in the body) is manipulating
objects via their specific interface, and so is not uniform.

FWIW, the only things I'm aware of that are in B but not C, are "open
interface" based Web services, and some WebDAV services.  WebDAV has a
method called PROPFIND, which only makes sense when invoked on a
property resource.  It should have used GET.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 13:18:49 GMT

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