RE: Relocating Web services

>REST is a wonderful thing. It's an incredibly powerful disruptive
>technology. It has changed the way people search for and obtain information
>and entertainment. It's changing the way people compose information. It's
>having a huge impact on every form of publishing industry (news, magazines,
>books, music, movies, etc.) But that doesn't mean that it should supplant
>all other forms of distributed computing -- not even all forms of Web-based
>communications.

Ok, so far I have been able to follow the terminology and most of the
arguments - depending on who you talk to the web is either just 1. http+html
or 2. http+html+loads of other internet technologies. Web services may or
may not fit with web 1 or 2. I personally don't see a problem with calling
SOAP-based systems Web Services, whatever protocols are used - ok, perhaps
Internet Services or even XML Services might have been better, but I don't
see this as a significant issue.

What I do find strange though is talking about REST in such a way though -
surely this describes an architecture that is how Fielding et al suggest the
web *should* work. In the real world I'd be a little surprised and not
entirely comfortable with retrofitting a blueprint on an existing building,
but just considered in terms of guidelines for extensions to the building
then I could see the merit. Reluctantly going further, ok, if the plumbing
breaks than you can replace the old system with a system based on the new
design. But talking of the new blueprint, how the building would be in an
ideal world, as if it *is* the building would strike me as most bizarre. I
have the same reaction to the statement above.

Cheers,
Danny.


---
Danny Ayers
<stuff> http://www.isacat.net </stuff>

Received on Friday, 3 May 2002 07:41:20 UTC