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

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

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 22:13:57 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E03132900@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "He, Hao" <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>, "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Josh Sled" <jsled@asynchronous.org>
Cc: "Michael Champion" <mc@xegesis.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

I think that this discussion is happening because people like to say the
same things thousands and thousands of times.  There is, of course,
absolutely no point since there is no working group, there are no
decisions to be made, and the same things have been said thousands of
times with no more effect than they are having now.  Eventually I assume
that people will get tired of typing.  Presumably at some point I will
unsubscribe from this group if all I'm going to get is spam from it.  As
far as I'm concerned that's what it is, since it is email to no purpose
whatsoever.

I regret contributing to it, and I apologise to those that I essentially
spammed by doing so.

Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 9:51 PM
To: 'He, Hao'; 'Jim Webber'; 'Josh Sled'; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: 'Michael Champion'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: REST wrap-up (was Re: Web Services Architecture Document


Why is this discussion happening?  Why even join the ws-arch group if
you don't like SOAP?  I can't get over that you even want to talk about
this.

Dave

ps. The folks that tunnel over HTTP are using SOAP as a transport.  You
want them to use it as a transfer protocol.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: He, Hao [mailto:Hao.He@thomson.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 7:14 PM
> To: 'Jim Webber'; He, Hao; David Orchard; Josh Sled; Cutler, Roger
> (RogerCutler)
> Cc: Michael Champion; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: REST wrap-up (was Re: Web Services Architecture Document
>
>
> Yes, you cannot get lower than 1. However, it is not "the less the 
> better". It is "a small set of well-defined verbs" that does the
> trick.  The Web
> already has GET,POST, DEL and PUT, so why reinvent the
> "wheel" in SOAP?  If
> you want to call something Web services, why don't do it the
> Web way?  What
> strikes me is that people want to call SOAP exclusively "the
> Web service"
> but they just view the Web merely as a transfer protocol.
>
> Hao
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Webber [mailto:Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 February 2004 13:57
> To: He, Hao; David Orchard; Josh Sled; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Cc: Michael Champion; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: REST wrap-up (was Re: Web Services Architecture Document
>
>
>
> Hao:
>
> > I would argue that the reason you want to limit the number of verbs 
> > is that we are consuming services.
>
> Fine. I can reduce the number of verbs from my original two (SEND and
> RECEIVE) to just one (SEND). That certainly seems like the minimum I 
> can get away with, can the REST approach do any better :-)
>
> Jim
>
Received on Monday, 9 February 2004 23:14:36 UTC

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