- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 10:33:54 -0400
- To: "David W. Levine" <dwl@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 11:24:20PM -0400, David W. Levine wrote: > On the face of it, this flies in the face of 40 years of programming > evolution. > Reuse, factoring and composition are based on notions that we can reuse > chunks of code that perform identical tasks, and that we should actively > strive to separate unrelated issues. (e.g. message format/content and state > of conversation.) I don't see what that has to do with sending different messages. > This issue become especially cogent in negotiation and flexible choreography > situations. If two or more web services are engaging in a classic negotiation > pattern where they iteratively revise their negotiation stances, I may > expect to > see sequences where tens, or even hundreds of identical messages are exchanged, > differing only in the increasingly long history that led the services to > their current > interaction. Likewise, if a pair of services, at some point in relationship > decide they need > to undertake to follow a mutually understood choreography, I'm somewhat at > a loss > to see how to approach this. Hmm, are you talking about stateful interactions perhaps? > >Not really. Anybody who's written any RDF code has already done this. > > > I'll politely observe this is a gross simplification of a rather complex > problem. The problem is indeed complex, but the mechanics of the solution that RDF provides is pretty simple. > However, there's a key missing step. A skipped precondition, if you > will. Before you can conclude that the REST constraints will > produce a desirable system, you need to determine whether the > properties from which the REST constraints were derived fully > match the properties of the system you need. Granted. Based on the use cases I've seen for Web services, REST is an *excellent* fit for *all* of them. But others should determine this for themselves, sure. But ... > I'd suggest a complementary approach. When one finds that a > problem seems to be bending the REST constraints, go back and > try to understand which underlying property is causing the > problem. This sounds good, but it's extremely tough because it presupposes an indepth knowledge of REST. MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Sunday, 11 August 2002 10:33:22 UTC