- From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:25:22 +0100
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>
Mark, > If you're referring to; > > "To me "doc-style SOAP" is "RESTful SOAP"." > -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Sep/0020.html Apologies, I thought it was "doc-lit SOAP". > What I meant is that if you want to be doing document style SOAP, > you should really be using REST. I didn't mean to suggest that > all so-called document-style uses of SOAP are RESTful. OK, I think we agree that some of document-style uses of SOAP are RESTful. Can you give a simple example of an unRESTful use of doc-lit SOAP ? This would help me to see what you mean when saying that not all uses of doc-lit SOAP are RESTful. > > Doc-Lit SOAP can also meet other REST constraints. > > Yes, I think it *could* meet all of them. > > But so could rpc/encoded. How could it ? Rpc/Encoded use of SOAP can't meet (by design) any of REST constraints, can it ? The only constraint it can try to meet is that of state as representation, and it's only with Rpc/Literal. > I don't believe it's particularly useful to say what *could* be, at > least without detailing what's involved in making it so. I would say > that it's more useful to relate what people do today with doc/lit, to > REST. Can you please clarify a little bit more what you mean ? Most (or at least not all) uses of doc-lit SOAP are RESTful. Do you mean specifying some guidelines (that is constraining doc-lit sufficiently enough) under which *all* (instead of 'some') uses of doc-lit SOAP can be said to be RESTful? Thanks Sergey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> To: "Sergey Beryozkin" <sberyozkin@zandar.com> Cc: <www-archive@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 2:01 PM Subject: Re: Few questions about REST > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 06:32:45AM -0400, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > > Hello Mark, > > > > > > So when you said that "doc-lit SOAP is RESTful" what did you mean by > > that ? > > > > > > Did I say that? <snip/> > > Yes you did :-). And it's now in www-archive :-) > > If you're referring to; > > "To me "doc-style SOAP" is "RESTful SOAP"." > -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Sep/0020.html > > What I meant is that if you want to be doing document style SOAP, > you should really be using REST. I didn't mean to suggest that > all so-called document-style uses of SOAP are RESTful. > > > > I think I may have said that the RESTful use of SOAP looks like doc/lit, > > > but where there's no method in the body. i.e. where the document is just > > > state. > > And I'm just trying to see how RESTful a doc-lit SOAP *can* be. > > Understood. > > > It seems you do agree that a doc-lit SOAP can meet a resource identification > > constraint. > > *Can*, yes. > > > Doc-lit SOAP can also meet a uniform interface constraint, that is all > > identified resources support the same uniform interface, at least POST and > > GET. > > *Can*, yes. > > > The only question to me is it a uniform interface constraint which is not > > met completely when POST is used instead of GET (the same as it can be used > > instead of PUT and DELETE), I think it's a uniform interface one, and this > > is what I meant when saying that doc-lit SOAP doesn't meet the constraint > > strictly. Or is it some other, perhaps a derived constraint, which is not > > met in such a case ? > > Understood. > > Strictly, the REST uniform interface constraint only requires that the > interface semantics be uniform. It doesn't require that you don't do > the equivalent of GET via POST. Moreover, I don't believe any of REST's > other constraints disallow it. > > I've run into issues like this before with REST, and when I've asked > Roy about it, his answer was basically that it was one of those "Don't > shoot yourself in the foot" things; that it was too obvious not to > include as a constraint. > > > Doc-Lit SOAP can also meet other REST constraints. > > Yes, I think it *could* meet all of them. > > But so could rpc/encoded. > > I don't believe it's particularly useful to say what *could* be, at > least without detailing what's involved in making it so. I would say > that it's more useful to relate what people do today with doc/lit, to > REST. > > > So, can we say that a doc-lit SOAP is "mostly" RESTful, taking into account > > that it can meet all constraints ? > > No. "doc/lit", by itself, is insufficiently constraining. Thousands > of people already know what it means, and if you say that it is mostly > RESTful, they'll think that they're already close enough to REST. > > Ethernet and TCP "can meet all constraints" of REST, but we wouldn't > say those are RESTful. "Mostly RESTful" means that the system *DOES* > intern the important constraints of REST; it doesn't mean that it *CAN*. > > Mark. > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > >
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 07:12:14 UTC