Re: Hydra scope

On May 13, 2014, at 12:46 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Monday, May 12, 2014 11:50 PM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
>> On 05/12/2014 04:58 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>> As you know, that's in fact one of the first issues I raised:
>>> 
>>>   https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/2
>>> 
>>> ... but so far you are the first one to mention this. The reason it is called Operation is
>> because in the end it describes a HTTP operations (or requests). I have no strong opinion on
>> this and would like to hear other peoples thoughts on this.
>> 
>> Looking to the HTTP spec, there is no thing called "HTTP Operation"; the
>> spec speaks about methods (GET, PUT, POST...).
> 
> You are right. The term operation was mostly eliminated from httpbis. It was, however, used quite a bit in RFC2616 in statements like:
> 
>  "This feature is intended to be useful in preventing races between PUT
>   operations."
> 
>  "If the requested resource has not been modified since the time specified
>   in this field, the server SHOULD perform the requested operation..."
> 
>  "The client cannot be guaranteed that the [DELETE] operation has been
>    carried out, even if the ..."
> 
> But it doesn't really matter IMO.
> 
>> I would reserve this term for HTTP in our context. This leaves action
>> and operation as possible candidates.
> 
> Yeah. I think both terms are fine and are more or less synonyms anyway.
> 
> 
>> I agree that operation sounds RPCish but you could also argue that
>> method sound OOPish.
> 
> OK.. I don't associate operation with RPC. I do associate method or procedure or function (call) with RPC. 
> 
> 
>> I still favor operation over HTTP because it is a plastic term in
>> computer science while
>> action is not used in the domain of distributed systems -- see the
>> corresponding Wikipedia articles:
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation
> 
>> From those two pages, it could be argued that the usage of the term "action" in UML fits: 
> 
>  "an action is a named element that is the fundamental unit of executable functionality"
> 
> But "operation" does of course as well.
> 
> 
>> My mental model about this is, exemplified with a user registration.
>> Say a new account is registered  by a HTTP POST with certain data.
>> 
>> So the caller conducts a _create operation_ using the HTTP POST method.
>> The action is the event that happened at the point in time when he
>> conducted
>> the operation. The operation is not a single point in time, it has a
>> start and an end.
> 
> What do our native speakers say to this? For me personally they are kind of equivalent and I could argue either way. In doubt, I'd would say we keep what we have.

I agree that "operation" implies an action which is completed, whereas "action" implies the triggering event. However, given that HTTP actions/operations return a status code, this usually (but not always) implies that the action has reached some form of completion.

Gregg

> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:01:57 UTC