- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 22:41:34 -0400
- To: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 12:25:22PM -0400, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > 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". Ah, gotcha. No problem. > > 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. http://www.pocketsoap.com/weblog/SoapInterop/r3/doclit.html There, "echoPerson" and "echoDocument" are the operations, which are not uniform. > > > 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. If the encoded operation is uniform, then it would meet the uniform interface constraint. Other constraints could be added. With RPC/ literal, you're basically starting with a low level protocol on top of which you'd have to reinvent HTTP. Oh, and it would be rpc/encoded over TCP. > > 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. Can you point me to one that you think is 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? Right, though I'd want to use a new name rather than "doc/lit". "RESTful doc/lit", say. Or "state/literal" maybe. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 22:38:00 UTC