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

RE: Protocol independence

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:32:25 -0700
To: "'Mark Baker'" <mbaker@idokorro.com>, "'Mike Champion'" <mc@xegesis.org>, <www-ws@w3.org>
Message-ID: <032501c2fd34$0a30c410$481e11ac@beasys.com>
I think REST has better visibility than non-REST systems.  That does not
mean that non-REST systems have no visibility.  Also, there are other
properties that may be desirable, like multi-protocol.  Getting visibility
under multi-protocol circumstances may be simpler under non-REST, as a
SOAP-specific mechanism could be used, rather than a protocol specific one.


Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Mark Baker
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:18 AM
> To: Mike Champion; www-ws@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Protocol independence
> 
> 
> 
> > On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:00:22 -0500, Mark Baker 
> > <mbaker@idokorro.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > The choice to use GET vs POST to retrieve stuff is most
> > > definitely an architectural decision, because the properties of
> > > the architecture depend on that choice.  If you choose to use GET
> > > to retrieve data, your system demonstrates greater visibility than
> > > if you were to use POST.  That's why the TAG says stuff like;
> > >
> > > "Safe operations (read, query, view, ask, lookup, etc.) on HTTP
> > > resources SHOULD be implemented using GET"
> > > -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/get7
> > >
> > > Now *that's* architectural guidance! 8-)
> > 
> > Well, I think it's best practice guidance.  (note the SHOULD 
> > as opposed to 
> > MUST). I agree that SOAP 1.2 is better off having a 
> > mechanism so as to 
> > give the binding a hint that if the operation requested is 
> > "safe" so that 
> > the appropriate message transport mechanism-level operation 
> > is requested.  
> > I guess we will continue to disagree because you see these as 
> > fundamental 
> > architectural principles, and I see them as implementation 
> > optimizations 
> > and best practice guidelines.
> 
> Mike, I thought we already agreed that REST had improved 
> visibility over
> SOA?  Dave Orchard agreed with Roy and I, at least.  I don't 
> understand
> how you can say that using GET vs. POST is not a choice with
> architectural
> implications if you agree with that.
> 
> > Maybe that makes me a Reformed RESTifarian, and you and Orthodox 
> > RESTifarian :-)
> > 
> > [See 
> http://www.rdfrost.com/Reference/Religion/Heretic_Scum.html  -- maybe 
> I'm a Reformed RESTifarian Reformation of SOAP 1.2 and you're 
> a Reformed
> 
> RESTifarian Reformation of Fielding's Thesis :-) :-) ]
> 
> What, no Crusades analogy?! 8-)
> 
> MB
> 
> 


Received on Monday, 7 April 2003 14:32:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:41 GMT