I agree. A constrained interface is fundamental. That is why I always claim it is an important architectural constraint for any SOA. Unfortuntely, this point has been washed down quite a bit in the final document. I was told that it is just a best practise. Hao -----Original Message----- From: Mark Baker To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org Sent: 2/7/2004 8:46 AM Subject: Re: REST wrap-up (was Re: Web Services Architecture Document Thanks Roger (and Mike), for those answers. They were just what I was looking for, again. I apologize for not asking them in the first round of questions, but it only occurred to me afterwards that they wouldn't provide me all the information I needed to really understand where folks were coming from. I presume you won't mind if I don't turn this into a thread 8-), but just for the record, as you summized, I'm not in the a) camp, as my understanding of software architecture tells me that some architectural styles are not suitable for some domains (like the Internet). I'll just briefly mention again, that if you study enough Internet scale systems (email, Web, instant messaging, even the telephone network), you'll find that they *ALL* have one thing in common; a constrained interface derived from an application abstraction (respectively, an inbox, a resource, a user, and a telephone line). I don't believe that's a coincidence. Cheers, Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:26 GMT