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

Re: Section 1.6 and REST - Can we make this more clear and useful?

From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@propylon.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:54:50 +0000
Message-ID: <4012A35A.8090003@propylon.com>
Cc: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Mike Champion wrote:


> Ummm think about it .... am I "attacking REST" by asserting that it hits 
> the 80/20 point for many web-based services but has no well-known 
> success stories for more complex integration situations?  

On reflection "attacking" wasn't fair, so my apologies. But in my 
defence I've seen "it's a complex problem" and suchlike used enough 
times to circumvent debate on achitectural options to be wary.

As for the text, instead of simple v complex, perhaps the doc could 
talk about classes of problem. Would anyone really object to a 
document pointing out that REST (sans extensions such as mentioned 
by Mark Baker) might not be the right style for eventing, rm, or 
high volume TP? What REST could add there is operational visibility 
- a standard means to ask various systems about a given resource (be 
it a message/transaction/document).

cheers
Bill de hÓra

-- 
Technical Architect
Propylon
http://www.propylon.com
Received on Saturday, 24 January 2004 11:54:58 GMT

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