- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:30:19 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 12:20 PM > To: Champion, Mike > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: Re: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? > > > Well, kind of. There are a whole lot of coordination languages out > there, but only one is "RESTful"; the one whose coordination semantics > are applicable to all things with identity. Once again, I relied on my fading memories rather than Google. Bad idea! Sorry for the confusion. (In my own defense, I was mainly interested in getting discussion started, not in pontificating!) But RESTful or not, I think there are a range of solutions to the problem of web service "reliability" that don't presume a reliable message substrate. Wearing my Software AG hat, I'd like to encourage the discussion. Wearing my WSA co-chair hat, I accept that this could be a rathole and will happily abide by the consensus of the WG if we do want to focus just on reliable messaging for now. > > BTW, it's also interesting to note that David Gelernter basically > predicted the Web in his book MirrorWorlds (the first page, even), > and most of his research at that time was around coordination > languages, in particular Linda, which shares similar goals (and > coordination semantics) to the Web. It just wasn't as well designed. Yes, I find Gelertner more intriguing than illuminating ... and AFAIK the Linda papers are not on the Web anywhere, so what I know of it is mostly secondhand. Still, I'm not clear on why GET / PUT / POST / DELETE of resource representations on the Web is RESTful but (using Javaspaces terminology) read / write / take of Entries in a Space is not.
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 12:30:52 UTC