W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2004

RE: REST wrap-up (was Re: Web Services Architecture Document

From: He, Hao <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:39:04 +1100
Message-ID: <686B9E7C8AA57A45AE8DDCC5A81596AB0922DFBB@sydthqems01.int.tisa.com.au>
To: "'Michael Champion '" <mc@xegesis.org>, "''''www-ws-arch@w3.org ' ' ' '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>


 "If reasoning were like hauling I should agree that several reasoners would
be worth more than one, just as several horses can haul more sacks of grain
than one can. But reasoning is like racing and not like hauling, and a
single Barbary steed can outrun a hundred dray horses."

Galileo Galilei in: IL SAGGIATORE (1623).

Unforunately, reasoning at W3C is like hauling.

Frankly, you only need SOAP when your services are dirty.  To build clean
services, 
you just need to take a REST.

Hao


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Champion
To: '''www-ws-arch@w3.org ' ' '
Sent: 2/7/2004 7:27 AM
Subject: Re: REST wrap-up (was Re: Web Services Architecture Document



On Feb 6, 2004, at 3:11 PM, Thompson, Bryan B. wrote:

> Then, if a REST style is fine, are you only objecting to the native
> use of the HTTP protocol (vs SOAP tunneled through whatever)?
>

I'm not objecting to anything other than the notion there is One True 
Way to do any of this.  REST has a place, SOAP/WSDL has a place, 
SOAP-RPC has a place (albeit mainly in well-managed enterprise 
environments).    I'm just a bit mystified by Mark's repeated queries 
for clarification on why WSA doesn't build on a REST and only REST 
foundation.  That's the issue that I *think* was originally  being 
asked in this thread, and I think is very thoroughly answered in the 
WSA Note and (extensively!) in the www-ws-arch archives.


Received on Friday, 6 February 2004 15:37:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:26 UTC