- From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:32:45 +0100
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>
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 :-) > 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. It seems you do agree that a doc-lit SOAP can meet a resource identification constraint. 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. 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 ? Doc-Lit SOAP can also meet other REST constraints. So, can we say that a doc-lit SOAP is "mostly" RESTful, taking into account that it can meet all constraints ? Cheers Sergey Beryozkin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> To: "Sergey Beryozkin" <sberyozkin@zandar.com> Cc: <www-archive@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:06 AM Subject: Re: Few questions about REST > On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 01:15:35PM -0400, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > > > > Can we consider doc-lit SOAP as being "mostly RESTful" ? > > > > > > In general, I don't think so. Resource identification and the uniform > > > interface are absolutely core to REST. If the interface were "very > > > general", without being strictly "uniform" (e.g. "PROPFIND", or > > > "SEARCH"), but resources were identified, then I would answer "yes". > > > > For example, the same way as PROPFIND would be used to retrieve a property > > of some identified resource and possibly create it if it's not available, > > setting it to some initial value passed in a request's body ? In other > > words, using PROPFIND would not be trictly "iniform" in that it'd be used > > for not only retrieving a property, the same way as doc-lit SOAP sometimes > > uses POST for retrieving the representation. > > No, PROPFIND isn't strictly uniform because it doesn't make sense for all > objects; it only makes sense on properties. > > Think of REST's "uniform interface", as the interface that would be > exposed by the root object in a hierarchy, such as java.lang.Object. > You wouldn't put getStockQuote() on it, right? > > > > But if we're talking about very specific methods like "getInvoice", > > > then I'd have to answer "No". > > Do you refer to the fact that a doc-lit SOAP, while not passing method > > names, can still be used to "getInvoice" with a message body being empty and > > SOAPAction hinting to a handler that a getInvoice() should be invoked ? > > No, just what I said above. > > > I thought you agreed in an earlier message that if a control parameter > > (SOAPAction or application/xml+soap action attribute) is a URI then it's > > semantically equivalent to a case when such a control parameter is passed > > within a resource URI. A resource then could still be identifiable. For > > example, 1 is a (relative) URI to a subordinate resource : > > > > POST mainResource/1 > > > > and > > > > POST mainResource > > application/xml+soap; action=1 > > > > seem to be equivalent, especially due to the fact that > > "application/xml+soap" is a registered mime type and it might be easier for > > generic intermediaries to understand that it's mainResource/1 which is > > identified. > > Do you agree ? > > Yes. When the out-of-band information (e.g. "action=1") is > *identifying* information, then we're in synch. It's when the out of > band information defines the interface semantics that things go wrong, > because it messes with the contract. For example, a successful response > now means something different; the success refers to the action, rather > than to the simple submission of data for processing. > > > So when you said that "doc-lit SOAP is RESTful" what did you mean by that ? > > Did I say that? It *can* be, but 99.99% of people still put a method > in the body. By definition, that's unRESTful. > > 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. > > > I'll try to understand better what you said with respect to late-binding, > > and then I'll ask more questions :-) > > Fire away! > > Mark. > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > >
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 07:32:26 UTC