RE: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7)

If you equate the "Web architecture" as being equal to conforming to the
application semantics of HTTP (GET/PUT/POST/DELETE), then yes, I agree that
the current Web services architecture based on SOAP/WSDL/UDDI doesn't fit
neatly into the Web architecture. SOAP definitely abuses HTTP POST. (So do
most CGI scripts. People have been abusing HTTP POST from the early days of
the Web.)

So here's the question: do the application semantics of HTTP define the Web
architecture? Does the abuse of HTTP POST constitute a violation of the Web
architecture?

I don't particularly care where SOAP and WSDL get standardized. I'm not
driven to do "the right thing for the Web". I'm trying to do the right thing
for my customers. I'm working to make SOAP and WSDL better, because my
customers are building business applications based on SOAP and WSDL.

If W3C doesn't want to be a part of this effort, then let's just be up front
about out. Let's cancel the entire Web Services Activity, and we (the
members) will just take our work elsewhere. (Be prepared to lose a few of
us.) Personally, I'd rather have the standardization effort happen at a
venue that isn't trying to undermine the effort.

Anne


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-talk-request@w3.org [mailto:www-talk-request@w3.org]On Behalf
> Of Simon St.Laurent
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 3:46 PM
> To: Anne Thomas Manes
> Cc: Www-Talk@W3. Org
> Subject: RE: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7)
>
>
> On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 09:26, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> > The Web has been around longer than REST. You're trying to
> revise history by
> > saying that the Web architecture = REST.
>
> I don't think it takes a REST zealot - I've blasted REST a number of
> times on xml-dev and will likely do so again in the future - to see that
> REST at least fits into the Web architecture neatly, while it's pretty
> obvious that Web Services (as SOAP/WSDL/UDDI) does not, cannot, and
> probably should not.
>
> There's no need for historical revisionism whatsoever. If, as you said
> yesterday [1], "Web services (based on the existing Web services
> architecture) aren't constrained by Web technologies" could you please
> stop claiming that Web Services are or should be part of the Web?
>
> This seems like a remarkably obvious conclusion.  There's lots of room
> on the Internet for things that aren't part of the Web.
>
> [1] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Apr/0249.html
>
> --
> Simon St.Laurent
> Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
> Errors, errors, all fall down!
> http://simonstl.com
>

Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 18:30:21 UTC